(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned select list dated 05.06.2024 published by the 2nd respondent for the post of Hostel Superintendent cum Physical Training Officer quash the same writ respect to the selection of the 4th respondent and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to select the petitioner for the post of Hostel Superintendent cum Physical Training Officer in Tamilnadu Employment and Training Subordinate services in pursuance to the select list dated 05.06.2024.)

1. This writ petition seeks issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned selection list dated 05.06.2024 published by the 2nd respondent for the post of Hostel Superintendent cum Physical Training Officer with respect to the selection of the 4th respondent and consequently direct the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to select the petitioner for the post of Hostel Superintendent cum Physical Training Officer in Tamil Nadu Employment and Training Subordinate services in pursuance to the selection list dated 05.06.2024.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she completed a Diploma in Physical Education (D.P.Ed.) in the year 2011, which is a two-year course. It is her case that Notification No.24/2023, dated 18.10.2023, was issued to fill up 18 vacancies in the post of Hostel Superintendent-cum-Physical Training Officer. In response to the said notification, she applied for the post of Hostel Superintendent-cum-Physical Training Officer under the Most Backward Classes (PSTM) category, as per Section 2(d) of the Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Services under the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010. She submits that she appeared for the written examination on 21.01.2024, which was conducted in two parts. The results were published on 07.03.2024, wherein the petitioner’s name and Register No.0201002142 were found in the provisional list of 35 candidates. Since there were only 18 vacancies to be filled up, the results were published in respect of 35 candidates.

3. It is her further case that, on 28.05.2024, respondents 1 to 3 called for physical verification of certificates, and her certificates were also verified. She was, therefore, hopeful of being appointed to the said post. She had secured an overall rank of 700 and a communal rank of 228. It is her contention that the second respondent published the impugned list on 05.06.2024 for the post of Hostel Superintendent-cum-Physical Training Officer, wherein the fourth respondent was selected to the said post under the Backward Classes (Women) (PSTM) category, while the petitioner was placed in the reserve list. It is contended by the petitioner that, in order to avail herself of the benefit of the PSTM category, G.O.(Ms.) No.82, dated 16.08.2021, prescribes certain conditions that are required to be fulfilled. One of the conditions is that the candidate should have completed her entire education, right from the 1st standard up to the 12th standard, as well as her higher education in Tamil medium. In effect, the entire course of education should have been completed in Tamil medium. It is her case that she is fully eligible, as she had undertaken her studies in a Tamil-medium school from the first standard up to the 12th standard, and that even her Diploma in Physical Education was entirely completed in Tamil medium. Therefore, she satisfies the conditions prescribed under G.O.(Ms.) No.82, dated 16.08.2021.

4. It is her contention that the fourth respondent did not satisfy the conditions prescribed under G.O.(Ms.) No.82, dated 16.08.2021, as the Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) course offered by the YMCA College had English as the medium of instruction and was not offered in Tamil medium. Therefore, she would contend that the fourth respondent did not satisfy the conditions stipulated therein and, hence, she would question the appointment of the fourth respondent. She would submit that, by way of applications filed under the Right to Information Act, details were sought, in response to which it was stated that the YMCA College does not offer courses in Tamil medium. Relying upon the said reply under the Right to Information Act, she would contend that the fourth respondent did not fulfil the conditions stipulated under G.O.(Ms.) No.82, dated 16.08.2021. On the aforesaid basis, she submitted a representation dated 25.09.2024. However, no action was taken to rectify the same. Therefore, she has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the appointment of the fourth respondent and consequently, to direct the respondents to appoint her to the said post. The entire case of the petitioner revolves around the issue as to whether the fourth respondent had, in fact, completed the course in Tamil medium or not. Intriguingly, both the petitioner and the fourth respondent had studied at the same YMCA College.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it has been submitted that the notification for appointment to the post of Hostel Superintendent-cum-Physical Training Officer was issued in accordance with Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. The said post is governed by the Tamil Nadu Employment and Training Subordinate Services. One of the conditions stipulated therein relates to the educational qualifications prescribed for the said post, which have also been set out in the notification. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has followed the rules of reservation as well as the criteria relating to priority and non-priority candidature, as has been done in all such cases. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission would refer to paragraph 10 of the counteraffidavit, which reads as follows:

                     “10. It is further submitted that the petitioner T,t/Selvi.C.N.Cinthiya Scarino (Reg. No. 0201002142) has obtained 165.00 marks and secured 700th rank. Whereas the 4th Respondent Tmt/Selvi.J. Lakshmi Prabha (Reg. No. 1001001400) has obtained 244.50 marks and secured 159th rank which is higher than the Petitioner. Hence the 4th Respondent Tmt/Selvi.J.Lakshmi Prabha (Reg. No. 1001001400) has been selected under BC(W)(PSTM) category conditionally as one of the candidate among the 18 notified vacancies. Further, the selection list had been forwarded to the Head of Department with a condition to verify the Genuineness of PSTM Claim and to report the same to the Commission’s office. If the PSTM claim is found to be not genuine, the candidate is liable for such penal and legal action including recovery of salary as a consequence thereof.’’

6. Further, the petitioner obtained 165 marks and secured 700th rank, whereas the fourth respondent secured 244.50 marks and 159th rank. Since the fourth respondent had secured higher marks, she was selected in preference to the petitioner. Insofar as the claim under the BC Women PSTM category is concerned, the learned counsel would submit that both the candidates had furnished the requisite certificates, based on which the selection was made. He would further submit that the selection list had been forwarded to the Head of the Department, who is required to verify the genuineness of the PSTM claim and report to the Commission in the event of any discrepancy or if there is any issue regarding the genuineness of the certificate. He would, therefore, submit that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has followed the applicable rules and that the appointment of the fourth respondent cannot be faulted with.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that she had also applied pursuant to the aforesaid notification and fulfilled the requisite criteria for appointment. She stood first in the reserved category of BC (Women) (PSTM) and secured 159th rank in the overall ranking, which was much higher than that of the petitioner. Therefore, she was rightly selected for the said post. Insofar as the contention regarding the medium of instruction at the YMCA is concerned, he would refer to the typed set of papers dated 18.09.2026, and draw the attention of this Court to the letter dated 15.02.2019 and submit that the fourth respondent had undergone the course at the YMCA College of Physical Education. He would submit that the institution was affiliated to the University of Madras during the period from 2004 to 2007 and that the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University was formed later, in 2005. He would also refer to a certificate dated 10.02.2021 issued by the YMCA, which categorically states that the medium of instruction was Tamil. He would further refer to the certificates issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, to substantiate his contention that the fourth respondent had, throughout her schooling, i.e., from the first standard to the 12th standard, pursued her studies in Tamil medium. He would also refer to a certificate dated 29.05.2024 issued by the University of Madras, wherein it has been emphatically stated that the medium of instruction was Tamil. Therefore, he would submit that the fourth respondent possessed the requisite qualification and that the authorities concerned had also issued certificates to that effect. He would further submit that, after the appointment, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had directed that the certificates could be verified by the Head of the Department to which the fourth respondent was appointed. In this regard, he would refer to the letter dated 10.07.2025 addressed by the YMCA College of Physical Education to the Principal of the Government College, wherein it was specifically stated that the earlier certificate dated 10.02.2021 issued by the YMCA was genuine. He would, therefore, submit that the appointment of the fourth respondent cannot be faulted, as she had throughout pursued her education in Tamil medium. He would also refer to the reply furnished by the YMCA under the Right to Information application submitted by S. Gopalakrishnan on 17.04.2024, in response to his letter dated 05.04.2024, which has been placed in the typed set of papers at page 94, and submit as follows:

                     “With reference to the letter above cited, I am responding to your petition filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

                     Question:

                     Was the Bachelor of Physical Education Degree (BPE) taught in Tamil during the academic years from 2004 to 2008 at YMCA College Physical Education?

                     Response:

                     Yes, for the benefit of students, the course was conducted bilingually in Tamil and English.” (sic)

8. He would also refer to a similar reply dated 08.05.2024 issued by the University of Madras and contend that the courses are offered and conducted bilingually. The University of Madras has also clarified that the YMCA is at liberty to impart education in the diploma course in such medium as it may choose. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would further contend that neither the YMCA nor the University of Madras have been impleaded as a party to the present writ petition. Therefore, the certificates issued by the said institutions cannot be called into question in the present writ petition without impleading them as parties.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would refer to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court dated 27.09.2019 in R. Boominathan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors, 2019 SCCOnline Mad 38960 and, in particular, to the question referred to the Full Bench for consideration. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

                     “1. … the Hon’ble Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench for considering the below mentioned issues referred to therein:—“(i) Whether studied the Course in Tamil and having written University examinations in Tamil language will qualify the candidate for claiming reservation against Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM)? (II) In the absence of Tamil Medium of Instructions in the Colleges, whether the candidates studied the Courses in Tamil, or having Tamil Medium and whether the same has been continuing uninterruptedly upto which period? If Tamil Medium of Instruction is available, factually which are the Law Colleges run by the State Universities conducting the Law Course in Tamil as Medium of Instruction?”

10. He would submit that a person who has studied a course in Tamil or has written a university or competitive examination in Tamil cannot, by that fact alone, be recognised as having satisfied the requirements to claim reservation under the Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) category. He would also refer to the judgment in Kumaran v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, in W.P.(MD) No.15415 of 2020 dated 08.03.2024, and S. Sasikumar and N.Sathyabhavani. v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board and Ors in W.P. No.15633 of 2025, dated 04.08.2025. Further, he would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, particularly paragraph 13 which reads as under:

                     “13. In view of the above and in view of available vacancies, we deem it just and proper to accommodate those three candidates without disturbing the selections and appointments already made, to do complete justice, in the following manner :

                     13.1. Sunil Kumar Gupta (general category candidate with 184 marks) and Mohan Lal Soni (OBC candidate with 169 marks), who ought to have been selected in the 2001 selection list, and who were denied appointment in view of excess selection of women candidates, shall be deemed to have been selected by RPSC. As a consequence, necessary letters of appointment shall be issued to them…”

11. He would further submit that the appointment of the fourth respondent need not be disturbed, as her appointment has already been confirmed. If the petitioner is able to make out a case in her favour, this Court may direct that the petitioner be accommodated against any other existing vacancy or an upcoming vacancy, without disturbing the candidature of the fourth respondent.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would refer to the judgment in Prakash Chandra Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1957) 2 SCC 457, and particularly paragraph 11 therein, and submit that a judgment has to be applied having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in which it was rendered and cannot be adopted as a general principle. He would further submit that none of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner would qualify as a precedent applicable to the facts of the present case.

13. The issue, therefore, which requires to be determined by this Court is whether the fourth respondent satisfies the criteria prescribed in the notification calling for appointment to the post of Hostel Superintendent-cum-Physical Training Officer, vide Notification No.24 of 2023, and whether the selection list published by the second respondent on 05.06.2024 has correctly included the name of the fourth respondent.

14. On the one hand is the claim of the petitioner that she had undergone a diploma course in physical education in the very same institution where the fourth respondent also underwent a graduate degree in physical education. It is her case that the YMCA had issued a certificate dated 06.04.2024 certifying to the fact that she had undertaken the course in Tamil medium. She has also applied and obtained information under the RTI Act which would show that the medium of instruction is usually English in degree courses. However, the undergraduate students are permitted to take the examination in Tamil.

15. However, it needs to be noted that the said application was dated 31.01.2019 and did not pertain to the medium of instructions during the relevant period, i.e., between 2004 and 2007 when the fourth respondent graduated. The petitioner also relied upon the information provided by the University of Madras dated 11.11.2024, in which the University has certified that the YMCA has not sought for any permission to impart instructions in Tamil but it is open for them to instruct both in Tamil and English and has therefore muddled the waters further.

16. The fourth respondent has submitted a typed set of papers containing the certificates obtained by her, after applying to the University of Madras, to show that she had indeed completed the course in Tamil medium. The certificate dated 29.05.2024 is on the said lines. Similarly, YMCA also has issued a certificate dated 10.02.2021 which indicates that the fourth respondent was imparted instructions in Tamil. Moreover, the fourth respondent has also produced certificates to show that she had studied in Tamil medium all through, i.e., from class 1 up to class 12.

17. The first respondent has directed the concerned appointing authorities to obtain clarifications from the YMCA/University which has issued certificates pertaining to persons who have claimed reservation on priority like that of PSTM. By letter dated 10.07.2025, the YMCA College of Physical Education has addressed the Government Industrial Training Institute, Thiruvaiyaru, that the certificate dated 10.02.2021 is indeed genuine.

18. This leaves this Court with two contradictory statements. One which certifies that the YMCA College of Physical Education is imparting instructions in Tamil, and the other issued by the very same YMCA on 15.10.2019 on a request under the RTI that the instruction is English but the students are allowed to take the examination in Tamil. Intriguingly, the University of Madras also has joined in the pandemonium by informing under the RTI Act that the YMCA has not sought for any particular permission in writing that they are imparting instructions only in Tamil.

19. Therefore, before this Court are two sets of divergent information. One supplied by the fourth respondent which has already been verified by the first respondent and the employer to be true, and the other information provided by the petitioner which she has got under the RTI Act. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that, of the two pieces of information sought to be relied upon, namely the one obtained from the YMCA on 15.02.2019 and the other dated 11.11.2024. Of the two, the first information was obtained by one K. Kumaran and not by the petitioner and therefore cannot be relied upon.

20. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the genuineness of the certificates of the fourth respondent cannot be in question in light of the genuineness certificate dated 10.07.2025 issued by the YMCA on a request made by the Director of Government Industrial Training Institute and the appointing authority of the fourth respondent. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dr. P. Mujitabai and another v. State of Tamil Nadu dated 27.09.2020 in W.P. Nos.1934 and 2037 of 2020, in which this Court had reasoned out as follows:

                     “7. The learned Judge instead of disturbing the already appointed candidates and without quashing the selection list, directed the TANGEDCO to appoint the writ petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). I am inclined to adopt the very same approach in this case also. Without quashing the impugned selection list, I direct the respondents to appoint the writ petitioners herein as Assistant Medical Officers (Siddha) against the existing general vacancies. Such an appointment order will be issued within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. These writ petitions stand allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

21. It is to be noted that in the present case the petitioner has not arrayed either the YMCA or the Madras University as a party. In a similar case following the earlier decision in Mujitabai (referred supra), another Single Judge of this Court in S. Sasikumar and N.Sathyabhavani v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board,, W.P. Nos.15633 and 17945 of 2025 dated 04.08.2025 has recorded as follows in para 8 of the Order:

                     “8. Therefore, from reading of the above judgment, it is apparent that the University had not granted any permission to conduct the course in Tamil. It is also pertinent to mention here that even the learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that the YMCA College of Physical Education, Nandanum did not have permission to conduct classes of B.P.Ed., degree under Tamil Medium, whereas these students have completed their degree in the said College by writing examination in Tamil. This position has been clarified that unless the University granted permission to conduct Tamil Medium classes, simply because Students studied the course in Tamil will not come within the PSTM Quota.”

22. In the present case, on one hand, the university has replied to an RTI request of the petitioner that YMCA has not sought for any permission to impart education or conduct courses in Tamil but on the other hand, the very same YMCA has certified that it had indeed imparted instructions in Tamil and that the students also took the examination in Tamil.

23. A clarification received from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission furnishes the details of the candidates selected under the twenty per cent reservation prescribed by the Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010 and the same is extracted hereunder:

                     “HOSTEL SUPERINTENDENT CUM PHYSICAL TRAINING OFFICER IN TAMIL NADU EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SUBORDINATE SERVICES

                     NOTFN. NO. 24/2023, dt. 18.10.2023