TNPSC directed to seek statewide clarity on Tamil-medium reservation certificates after conflicting claims in recruitment case

The petitioner and the fourth respondent applied for the post of Hostel Superintendent-cum-Physical Training Officer under Notification No. 24/2023. Both claimed Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) status.

The petitioner scored 165 marks and ranked 700th; the fourth respondent scored 244.50 marks and ranked 159th, and was selected under the BC (Women) (PSTM) category, while the petitioner was placed on the reserve list.

The petitioner challenged the fourth respondent’s selection, contending that her B.P.Ed. course at YMCA College was not taught in Tamil. The parties relied on conflicting institutional certificates and RTI responses concerning the course’s medium of instruction.

The petitioner sought to quash the fourth respondent’s selection and to be appointed. Neither YMCA College nor the University of Madras was impleaded; two other YMCA graduates selected under PSTM were also not parties.

Whether the fourth respondent satisfied the PSTM requirements for selection under Notification No. 24/2023, including the requirement concerning the medium of instruction.

Whether the fourth respondent’s selection should be set aside and, if not, whether the petitioner could be considered for appointment against an existing general vacancy.

The Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010, including the PSTM framework referred to in Section 2(d), and G.O.(Ms.) No. 82 dated 16 August 2021 formed the basis of the PSTM claim.

In R. Boominathan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, the Full Bench held that writing examinations in Tamil, by itself, does not establish PSTM eligibility; the medium of instruction must also be Tamil.

The Court also considered Dr. P. Mujitabai v. State of Tamil Nadu, where appointment against existing vacancies was directed without disturbing prior selections, and S. Sasikumar and N. Sathyabhavani v. Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, concerning the need for university permission to conduct a course in Tamil medium.

The Court noted conflicting material: YMCA and University certificates supported the fourth respondent’s claim, while RTI responses raised doubt about whether Tamil was the course’s medium of instruction.

It declined to unsettle her selection, relying on the certificates verified by the appointing authorities and noting that YMCA and the University of Madras—whose records were central to resolving the dispute—were not parties. Any adverse determination could also affect two other YMCA graduates selected under PSTM who were not before the Court.

The Court distinguished Sasikumar because the university involved there was the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University, whereas the fourth respondent’s course was affiliated to the University of Madras for at least part of the relevant period.

Following the approach in Mujitabai, it considered appointment of the petitioner against an existing general vacancy without disturbing the fourth respondent’s position.

It directed respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner for appointment against any existing general vacancy in the post within eight weeks of receipt of the order.

It also directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to refer the PSTM-medium issue to the Government for instructions to colleges and universities, to clarify the requirement that the medium of instruction—not merely the examination language—be Tamil.