Uncategorized

MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.A.No.2552 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.20295 and 22021 of 2025 1. The Director General of Police / Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Complex, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 2. The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,

by Sekar Reporter · October 8, 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 08.09.2025

Pronounced on : 08.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

W.A.No.2552 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.20295 and 22021 of 2025

1. The Director General of Police / Chairman

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,

Old Commissioner of Police Complex,

Pantheon Road,

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008

2. The Member Secretary

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,

Old Commissioner of Police Complex,

Pantheon Road,

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

1. S.Mohamed Aslam

S/o. Sheat Mohamed

2. C.Sampath

S/o. Chakkaravarthi

3. V.Maragathavalli

Vs.

… Appellants

D/o. Veerasamy

… Respondents

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22.04.2025 made in W.P.No.32347 of 2024.

C. M.P.No.22021 of 2025

The State of Tamil Nadu

Rep. by its Secretary to Government

Human Resources Management Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. ….. Petitioner / Proposed

4th Respondent

Vs.

1. The Director General of Police / Chairman

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,

Old Commissioner of Police Complex,

Pantheon Road,

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008

2. The Member Secretary

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,

Old Commissioner of Police Complex,

Pantheon Road,

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

3. S.Mohamed Aslam

S/o. Sheat Mohamed

4. C.Sampath

S/o. Chakkaravarthi

5. V.Maragathavalli

D/o. Veerasamy …. Respondents

For Appellants / Petitioner : Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG

assisted by Mr.J.Lenin in W.A.No.2552 of 2025

Mr.R.Neelakandan, AAG

assisted by

Mr.S.Yashwanth, AGP for impleading petitioner in C.M.P.No.22021 of 2025

For Respondents

: Mr.S.Prabhakaran, Senior Counsel

for Mr.M.A.Gowthaman for R1

For Assisting the Court

: Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Jayaprakash

Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan

Mr.L.Chandrakumar

JUDGMENT

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

This Intra Court Appeal has been directed against the order passed by the writ court dated 22.04.2025 made in W.P.No.32347 of 2024.

2. The order impugned infact is a common order, where a batch of writ petitions similar to that of W.P.No.32347 of 2024 were disposed of.

However the appellants have chosen to file this single writ appeal against the very first writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.32347 of 2024.

3. The factual background of this writ appeal are stated as follows :

(i) that the second appellant, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services

Recruitment Board, in short, TNUSRB has issued a notification in Notification No.01/2023 dated 05.05.2023 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for selection and direct recruitment to the post of Sub- Inspectors of Police-2023 for Taluk, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police (Men, Women and Transgenders).

(ii) As per the notification, the vacancies are distributed as

follows :

Sub-Inspectors of Police (Taluk) – Total number of vacancy is 364 +

2 Backlog vacancies.

Sub-Inspectors of Police (AR) – Total number of vacancy is 141 + 4

Backlog vacancies.

Sub-Inspectors of Police (TSP) – Total number of vacancy is 110.

Therefore altogether, the total vacancies for the post of SubInspectors of Police under three categories would be 615 + 6 Backlog vacancies.

(iii) In the same month, i.e., on 23.05.2023, the second respondent TNUSRB has come out with an Addendum to Notification No.01/2023, whereby it called for applications for the direct recruitment to the post of Station Officers in Fire & Rescue Services Department (Men and Women)2023. The vacancy notified in this addendum notification is 128 + 1 Backlog vacancy.

(iv) It is to be noted that by virtue of original Notification No.01/2023 dated 05.05.2023 and Addendum Notification, dated 23.05.2023, the second appellant TNUSRB wanted to conduct a combined selection process for the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police in three categories as well as Station Officers in Fire & Rescue Services Department for the total vacancy of 750 including the Backlog vacancies.

(v) The TNUSRB conducted the selection process and finalised theselection list which in fact was questioned in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.11855 of 2024 etc., batch on various grounds.

(vi) During the hearing of the said batch of writ petitions before the writ court, it was a stand taken by the appellants herein who were the respondents in the said writ petitions that, some mistake had occurred in the selection process, therefore they have undertaken to re-do the exercise that is from the stage of shortlisting the candidates for physical measurement test, endurance test, physical efficiency test followed by viva-voce.

(vii) Recording the said stand taken by the TNUSRB, the learned writ court vide its order dated 21.06.2024 has allowed all those writ petitions by passing the following orders :

“2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, a report is filed by the first respondent, in which, in paragraph No.5, they have recognized the mistake and have undertaken to redo the exercise from the stage as of

26.09.2023 itself i.e., from the stage of short-listing the

candidates for physical measurement test, endurance test, physical efficiency test followed by viva-voice. Therefore, the respondents are going to redo the whole exercise after the stage of the written test. The said paragraph No.5 is extracted hereunder :- ” 5. It is submitted that the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in para 4 of the order will be complied with. The Board has decided to redo the Joint Recruitment 2023 from the stage of 26.09.2023 itself which includes Physical Measurement Test, Endurance Test and Physical Efficiency Test followed by Viva voce for those candidates who stands eligible as per the Supreme Court order in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs K.Shobana reported in 2021 (4) SCC 686. In this new process and the revised selection will commence from the month of July and will be completed within three months.”

3. It is also clarified by the learned Additional Advocate General for the second respondent that they will redo the exercise of short-listing the candidates for physical measurement test, endurance test, physical efficiency test, viva-voice etc. In the said list, if any of the new candidates are called, they will alone be called for physical measurement tests, endurance tests, physical efficiency tests etc., and in respect of the candidates who have already undergone the tests, the said tests will not be undertaken. However, their measurements and marks will be taken as such and a new list will be prepared in accordance with law. He also submits that due care will be undertaken to meticulously follow the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Saurav Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2021) 4 SCC 542 and State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K.Shobana, (2021) 4 SCC 686 and the revised select list will be published in accordance with law. It is also represented on behalf of the respondents that the entire exercise will be conducted within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. In view thereof, the grievances of all the writ petitioners, in all these Writ Petitions, shall stand redressed. It goes without saying that if, on the publication of the revised list or even short-listing of the list or even in the physical endurance test, any other person has any other grievance, the same can be agitated afresh.

5. Recording the above, all these Writ Petitions standdisposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. “

(viii) Therefore as per the undertaken given by the TNUSRB, the entire exercises have to be redone, accordingly, after redoing the exercise once again the selection list was issued sometime in October-2024. However, this time also, a batch of writ petitions had been filed in W.P.No.32347 of 2024 etc., batch challenging the infirmity of the said selection list made by the TNUSRB and the said batch of cases were heard together and were disposed of by the common order passed by the writ court dated 22.04.2025 which is infact impugned in this instant appeal.

(ix) In the impugned order, the learned writ court Judge having analysed all the aspects of the issue which were raised before him has ultimately concluded with the following orders :

“Conclusion:

83. The discussion above leads to the following conclusions:

(1) the Revised Provisional Selection Listpublished on 03.10.2024 is set aside;

(2) The respondents will have to rework theentire selection process following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2021) 4 SCC 686 [State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. K.Shobana and Others] and strictly follow the three steps laid therein, namely,

(i) Step 1: To first fill the 31% merit list on the basis of total marks obtained irrespective of caste, community or religion;

(ii) Step 2: Fill the back log vacancies with the merit list for the particular community first;

(iii) Step 3: apply the reservation for other communities

(3) Care must be taken that meritorious reserved candidates are fitted in the General Turn and thereby provide opportunity for the reserved candidates in the reserved list.

(4) Certificates introduced midway through the selection process or after the earlier order passed by this Court should be rejected and the candidate should be categorised in accordance with the details given by them in the application form and no other fresh certificate should be taken into consideration.

(5) Care should also be taken that PSTMreservation is applied only once while applying for a public post and not for a second time. If any of the departmental candidates had already been selected under the PSTM reservation, they cannot be considered under PSTM reservation under this notification.

84. This Court appoints Hon’ble Mr. Justice

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, Former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court to Monitor the selection and to supervise the fitment of candidates on the basis of the materials already available in the written examination and the marks in the physical endureance test and the marks in the viva- voce.

85. The respondents are directed to nominate a Nodal Officer in the cadre of Superintendent of Police, to assist the Hon’ble Judge appointed by this Court. The respondents are further directed to provide access to all records relating to the recruitment process to the Hon’ble Judge now appointed by this Court and also provide necessary and adequate secretarial staff as required and an office base to complete the process of fitment of the candidates from the stage after physical measurement test, endurance test, physical efficiency test and viva~voce had been done consequent to the order dated 21.06.2024 in W.P.No. 11855 of 2024 batch.

86. The Hon’ble Judge is at liberty to include any other staff/official to assist him in the discharge of this onerous task.

87. The Revised Selection List shall be presented before the Director General of Police/ Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services

Recruitment Board, Chennai, who shall publish the same.

88. The respondents are directed to pay an initial remuneration of Rs.5,00,000/~ (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar and also pay any further remuneration as determined by the Hon’ble Judge. The respondents are also directed to bear the transport and other incidental expenses of the Hon’ble Judge and of all the members of his team.

89. The entire exercise by the Hon’bleJudge shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

90. In view of the aforementioned orders, the petitions seeking to implead are allowed. Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the cause title before issuing the order copy.

91. The Writ Petitions stand allowed. The Revised Provisional Selection List dated 08.10.2024 and the consequential proceedings are set aside. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed. No order as to costs.”

(x) Therefore after having set aside the provisional selection list published in this regard by the TNUSRB dated 03.10.2024, the writ court had given directions to rework the entire selection process following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and others

v. K.Shobana and others reported in (2021) 4 SCC 686.

(xi) The learned writ court in the impugned order had in factappointed Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar, Former Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court to monitor the selection and to supervise the fitment of the candidates based on the materials already available in the written examination and the marks in the physical measurement test, endurance test, physical efficiency test and the viva-voce.

(xii) Pursuant to the said directives issued by the learned writ court, in the impugned order, the TNUSRB, the present appellant, having accepted the Judgment in fact acted upon by rendering all assistance to the Hon’ble Former Chief Justice being the supervisory Commission to complete the task of selection process including the fitment as logistics and secretarial assistance and other needy assistance of the Commission Judge had been rendered.

(xiii) The learned Commission Judge having completed the task with the help of two more officers and other set of staff has given a detailed report consisting of 470 pages.

(xiv) After completing the entire process by the Commission, thereport since has been handed over by the Commission to the TNUSRB, however, the TNUSRB, having known to the selection process completed by the Commission, had raised some doubts, especially in two contexts. In the first context, the doubts arisen in the minds of the TNUSRB was that the selection process undertaken by the Commission since was on the basis of the method indicated in K.Shobana’s case cited supra, but at the end, the resultant position would be in some of the communal categories for want of candidates other community categories have been fit in, thereby the roaster whether had been followed promptly and correctly was an issue.

(xv) The second issue raised by the appellants herein is that insofar as the horizontal reservation given to Persons Studied in Tamil Medium, in short PSTM candidates are concerned, the Commission adopted the method that, since the recruitment is by way of direct recruitment to the post of SubInspector of Police as well as the Station Officer in Fire Department, the candidates who sought for such selection under the PSTM quota would be considered, provided if they have claimed such quota first time. In other words, a candidate who had already been selected and has been working in any Government job or in any Governmental organisation under the PSTM quota, second time such a quota cannot be extended to such candidates as it would defeat the very import of the Act namely Tamil Nadu Appointment on preferential basis in the Services under the State of Persons Studied in

Tamil Medium Act 2010 as amended in 2020, in short, the PSTM Act. Therefore on that ground also, it is the contention of the appellants that, the selection made by the Commission might be an erroneous one and therefore in order to set aside the said selection and permit the TNUSRB to go ahead with selection once again afresh, the appellants have moved the present Writ Appeal.

4. Even at the admission stage, notices have been taken by the learned respective counsels appearing for the private respondents and therefore arguments were advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General

Mr.P.Kumaresan on behalf of the appellants and Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned Senior counsel appearing for R1 and Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior counsel for Mr.R.Jayaprakash, Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan and Mr.L.Chandrakumar for other respondents.

5. As the impugned order is a common order in a batch of writpetitions filed by various individual candidates and before the writ court those writ petitions were conducted by various Senior counsels and counsel and presently as against only the first writ petition in W.P.No.32347 of 2024 alone, the present Intra Court Appeal has been directed, majority of those counsels who appeared before the writ court on behalf of the writ petitioners since had appeared before this Court and they wanted to make their submissions, their submissions also were heard as combined submissions on behalf of the various candidates including the private respondents herein.

6. That apart, an impleading petition also has been filed in

C.M.P.No.22021 of 2025 filed by the State of Tamil Nadu represented by its

Secretary to Government, Human Resources Management Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9, as the said authority wanted to get impleaded in the writ appeal as one of the party respondent to put forth their stand that the intention of the Department, i.e., impleading party is not to restrict the PSTM Reservation only once and wherever PSTM candidates participate in any selection process, even though they have already availed such benefit, even second time or third time also such kind of benefit under PSTM quota can be extended to those candidates. Therefore in order to reiterate the said stand of the Department, that impleading petition also since was filed, Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General who appeared for the impleading party also was heard and he also made submissions in the line of submissions made by Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants.

7. All these arguments put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the parties having been heard and after having perusal of the materials placed before this Court, we have called for the report submitted by the

Commission before the learned single Judge and accordingly the Commission’s Report also was made available before this Court and the same has also been gone through and taken into account.

8. At least two times, the selection list has been set aside by this Court. In the first time, on 21.06.2024, the TNUSRB itself had come forward to admit that some mistakes have been committed in the selection process and therefore they wanted to re-do the exercise. Recording the same, such a direction was given in the said order of the writ court dated

21.06.2024.

9. Pursuant to the said order when the TNUSRB made the selection list, that was under challenge in the batch of writ petition including W.P.No.32347 of 2024. In the said batch of writ petitions, the learned writ court in its detailed order has concluded that the selection process has not been conducted as per the procedure mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shobana’s case cited supra.

10. In this context, it is to be noted that, apart from the PSTM Act, insofar as the selection to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police is concerned, already the Government has issued a Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.10, Home (Police-III) Department, dated 04.01.2012.

11. If we look at the import of G.O.(Ms).No.10, among other things,the Government in the said G.O has stated that after careful examination of the proposal of the Chairman, TNUSRB, had decided to accept such proposal. Therefore the Government directed that the preference of the candidates in the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors of Police shall not be sought for among the three categories, namely Taluk, AR and TSP and the provisionally selected candidate in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police be allotted among the three categories depending upon the marks as provided therein.

12. In order to have a ready reference of the import of G.O.(Ms).No.10, the relevant portion of the G.O.(Ms).No.10 is extracted hereunder :

“4. The Government after careful examination of the proposal of the Director General of Police and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai have decided to accept it. Accordingly, the Government direct that the preference of the candidates in the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors of Police shall not be sought for among the three categories, viz., Taluk / Armed Reserve / Tamil Nadu Special Police and the provisionally selected candidates in the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police be allotted among the three categories depending upon their marks as detailed below :

(i) The highest ranking candidates shall be allotted to Category-I (Taluk Police) subject to rules of reservation for the notified number of vacancies in this category.

(ii) Next level of ranking candidates shall be allotted to Category-II (Armed Reserve), subject to rules of reservation for the notified number of vacancies in this category and

(iii) Remaining candidates in the lowest level of ranking shall be allotted to Category-III (Tamil Nadu Special Police), subject to rules of reservation for the notified number of vacancies in this category.

6. The Director General of Police is requested to send necessary amendment proposals to Home (Police.VI) Department and Home (Police.IX)

Department to make necessary amendments in the

Special rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate

Services and Special rules for Tamil Nadu Special

Police Subordinate Service Rules.”

13. Therefore the method to be adopted in making the selection forthe post of Sub-Inspectors of Police in three categories, i.e., Taluk, AR and TSP, the top meritorious candidates would be selected and fitted in Taluk SI category and the next meritorious candidates would go for AR category and only the remaining people would be fit in under the TSP.

14. This method of recruitment since has been envisaged by the Government through G.O.(Ms).No.10, Home (Police-III) Department, dated 04.01.2012 and the present recruitment is a combined recruitment for all the three categories of Sub-Inspectors of Police, the selection authority had no other option except to strictly follow G.O.(Ms).No.10, Home (Police-III) Department, dated 04.01.2012.

15. Insofar as the reservation for the communal categories made available in this State is concerned, it is a 69% reservation being distributed among various communal categories and such reservation can be considered to be a vertical reservation. The remaining 31% of situations would be made available for open competition, for which irrespective of community any one can compete. In such case, only based on merits alone, selection shall be made.

16. Only in this context, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Shobana’s case cited supra would come into play. If we look at the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shobana’s case cited supra, there has been three steps envisaged therein, under which, first the general merit list to be filled in, thereafter the backlog vacancies on the particular reserved category to be filled in and the remaining reserved vacancies for the current year to be filled thereafter. The said Judgment in K.Shobana’s case is a Judgment following the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurav Yadhav and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2021) 4 SCC 542.

17. Only in this context, while disposing the batch of writ petitions through the impugned order, the writ court in paragraph No.83 has categorically held and directed that, the respondents will have to re-work the entire selection process, following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Shobana’s case and strictly follow the three steps laid therein,

i.e., step 1, step 2 and step 3.

18. In the impugned Judgment at paragraph No.83.5, the learned writ court also has directed that care should also be taken that, PSTM reservation is applied only once while applying for a public post and not for a second time. If any of the departmental candidates had already been selected under the PSTM reservation, they cannot be considered under PSTM reservation under this notification.

19. Therefore the two issues that has been raised by the appellants herein has been clarified and a clear cut direction in fact had been given by the learned writ court in the order impugned.

20. Taking into consideration, the learned Commission, who completed the task of the selection process, in its voluminous report, has dealt with each of the issue as to how the selection process was undertaken and concluded. In the report, the Commission from Page No.368 onwards under the Heading Part-II has given the details as to how the selection of

594 direct recruitment candidates and 148 department Police and Fire Rescue Service candidates in pursuance of Notification No.01/23 and addendum to Notification of TNUSRB was made and allotment of category as per G.O.(Ms).No.10, dated 04.01.2012 has been made.

21. In order to have an easy reference, the relevant portion of the

Report of the Commission under the Heading Part-II is extracted hereunder.

PART – II

41.Selection of 594 Direct recruitment candidates and 148 Department Police & Fire and Rescue Services candidates in pursuance of Notification 1 of 2023 and Addendum to Notification of TNUSRB and Allotment of Department as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated

04.01.2012.

The method of selection adopted is: Unified Reservation Across 594 Direct recruitment vacancies.

All 594 vacancies (S.I Taluk, 291, + S.I. AR 113, + S.I.TSP 88, + 102 S.O) are clubbed together for the selection.

69% Communal reservation + horizontal reservation (Women, PSTM, Sports and Wards) were applied across total vacancies.

After selection, candidates are allotted to Taluk, AR, and TSP based on rank, community, and availability of the selected candidates.

Among the 594 selected candidates 102 candidates are allotted to Station officers Fire and Rescue services Department on the basis of marks and option offered by the candidates as stated in the instructions to candidates.

G.O.Ms.No.10 Home (Police-III) Dept, dated 04.01.2012 is the guideline for allotment of selected candidates in three categories on meritbased allocation after selection and also rule of reservation. Meritorious candidates are chosen in categories I, II and III. in Taluk, AR and TSP respectively.

By following the above method, 291 candidates are allotted to S.I.Taluk Police. (G.T. 90 + B.C. 77+ BCM 10 + MBC/DNC 58 + S.C. 44 S.C.A 9+

S.T. 3=291)

For S.I. AR. 113 vacancies, candidates are allotted as G.T. 35 + B.C.30 + BCM 4+MBC/DNC 23 + S.C. 17+ S.C.A.3+ S.T. 1 = 113.

The balance number of candidates available within 594 selection list are, 88 candidates. They are to be allotted in TSP category. There is no reservation for women in TSP as per notification. By following communal reservation for 88 candidates 27 vacancies ought to be on G.T., 23 are to be allocated to B.C. 3 for BCM,18 for S.C, 13 for SCA 3 and for ST:1

In the available 88 selected candidates 27, high ranking candidates are allotted to GT, in BC for 23 vacancies only 21 B.C candidates are available.

For 3 BCM vacancies 3 BCM candidates are available. They are accommodated under BCM. For 18 MBC/DNC candidates only 16 candidates are available. For 13 SC vacancies 18 candidates are available i.e. in excess of 5 candidates. For SCA 3 vacancies 3 candidates are available. They are accommodated. For ST one vacancy and no ST candidate is available.

The shortage of candidates are 2 BC, 2 MBC/DNC, and 1 S.T. vacancy. These vacancies are adjusted with 5 excess candidates in the selection list belongs to S.C.

Likewise, in the Police Departmental vacancies allotments are made based on the merit and community.

Total vacancies under police departmental quota is 123.(S.I. Taluk 73 +S.I. AR 28 + S.I.TSP 22). The said vacancies are clubbed together for selection. The selected candidates allotted to S.I. of Police Taluk are (G.T.22 + B.C.19 + BCM 3+MBC/DNC

15 +S.C 11 +S.C.A 2 +S.T.1)

For S.I AR 28 vacancies are (G.T.9+B.C. 7 +BCM

1 + MBC / DNC 6 +S.C 4+SCA 1)

In the remaining available 22 selected candidates, 7 high ranking candidates are allotted to G.T, in B.C. for 6 vacancies only 2 candidates are available, for 1 BCM candidate no candidate is available. For 4 MBC/DNC vacancies 8 candidates are available. Thus 4 candidates are in excess. For 3 S.C. vacancies and 4 candidates are available, 1 candidate is in excess. For one SCA vacancy one SCA candidate is available and he is accommodated.

The shortage of 4 B.C candidates and shortage and of BCM candidate, that are adjusted with 4 excess candidates belong to M.B.C/DNC and 1 excess candidate belongs to S.C who are in the selection list.

If this methodology of unified system of selection process is not followed, the allotment of 594 selected Direct recruitment and 123 selected Departmental candidates are not possible, which may lead in not following the merit and communal reservation.

Further G.O.Ms.No.10 Home dated 04.01.2012 clearly states that, the provisionally selected candidates are to be allotted to three categories depending upon marks viz highest-ranking candidates within the community being allotted to category I and II and the remaining candidates with lowest level of ranking shall be allotted to category III i.e. T.S.P.

It is noticed that the G.O.M.S. 10 dated 04.01.2012 has two limbs (i) Remaining candidates in the lowest level to be allotted to Category III (ii) Subject to Rule of reservation. The second part could not be complied with.

Justification for Non-Compliance of Second part of G.O.:

The G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 04.01.2012, contains two parts for allotment of candidates in departments:

First part: Candidates with higher merit within the community are to be allotted to Categories I and II respectively.

Second part: The remaining candidates with lower marks shall be allotted to Category III, i.e. T.S.P. subject to rule of reservation.

While the first part was strictly adhered to-i.e., top-ranking candidates within each community were allotted to Taluk and AR-the second part, which requires rule of reservation to be followed in Category III (TSP), could not be strictly complied with, due to the following practical constraints:

The recruitment was conducted through a unified selection process, not on a “one Department – one selection basis. Therefore, the reservation was meticulously applied at the time of selection across the total number of vacancies (594 + 123). At the allotment stage, candidates had to be fitted into available posts within three categories. As a result of earlier communal reservation compliance during selection, and based on rank and community availability, it became inevitable that communal reservation could not be strictly ensured again in Category III (TSP).

For instance, in TSP, despite 88 candidates being available, there was a shortage of candidates in some categories (e.g., BC and MBC/DNC), while excess candidates are available in SC. These were adjusted by internal redistribution to avoid violating overall merit and reservation principles already followed during selection.

In compliance of first part after allotting the selected candidates on the basis of Mark and community to Taluk and AR, then remaining candidates in the lowest level are allotted to the Category III, however unable to fully comply the Rule of reservation. This has happened because, the communal reservation was strictly adhered in selection process, then allotting candidates category wise, it is not permissible to comply with the communal reservation in category III. This is due to the nature of the recruitment process, which is not based on a “one Department-one selection” model, but rather a unified selection for multiple categories, across two departments.

Thus, the objective and spirit of the G.O. have been duly followed, even if technical deviations arose in the allotment stage in Category III due to practical constraints.

Likewise, in the postings of Station Officers in the

Fire and Rescue Services Department (Direct Recruitment), for want of one BC woman candidate and one MBC/DNC woman candidate, women candidates belonging to S.C.(A) and S.T. categories were adjusted in those slots. Similarly, in the S.I. of Police (AR) Direct Recruitment, for want of one MBC/DNC woman candidate, a woman candidate belonging to the S.C. category was accommodated. In the postings of S.I. of Police AR (Departmental) candidates, for want of two women B.C candidates, the vacancies were filled with two women candidates belonging to the MBC/DNC and S.C. categories, respectively.

These discrepancies are inevitable when attempting to apply communal reservation within communal reservation during the allotment stage. Once the communal reservation has been properly applied during the selection process, any further subdivision or redistribution based on community and gender within a limited set of selected candidates can result in mismatch or shortage. This happens especially when ranking, merit, and community-wise distribution do not perfectly align with post-specific requirements such as departmental category, gender-specific vacancies, or exclusive male-only postings like TSP. As such, minor internal adjustments are carried out in order to preserve merit and avoid violation of broader reservation principles already ensured in the unified selection phase.

If any other method is followed to allot candidates in three different categories, it would disturb the selection list finalised based on following the communal reservation and meritorious candidates selected will fail to get allotment and it would be injustice to the meritorious candidates whose names are already found in the selection list.”

22. Along with the voluminous report submitted by the Commission, it has also filed a compliance report, where the learned Commission has stated that (i) the selection process was to be made for Sub Inspectors of

Police Direct Recruitment 492 vacancies + 6 Backlog vacancies; (ii) Station Officers, Fire and Rescue Services Department, Direct Recruitment 102 vacancies + 1 Backlog vacancy; (iii) Departmental quota 123 post in Police

Department and (iv) Departmental quota 26 posts in Fire and Rescue Services Department, totally 750 vacancies.

23. It has further been stated that, the selection was carried out by applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions made in Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. reported in (2021) 4 SCC

542 as well as the Judgment reported in (2021) 4 SCC 686, i.e., State of Tamil Nadu and others v. K.Shobana and others, by duly implementing communal reservation as vertical reservation and Women, PSTM, Sports and Wards quotas as horizontal reservation.

24. The report has given complete justification and explanation as tohow the selection has been carried out strictly on the basis of the Judgment in Shobana’s case by applying 69% vertical communal reservation as well as horizontal reservation under various quotas and also by following G.O.(Ms).No.10, dated 04.01.2012.

25. In G.O.(Ms).No.10, it has been made very clear as stated supra that the highest ranking candidates shall be allotted to Category 1, i.e.,

Taluk Police, the next level of candidates shall be allotted to category 2, i.e., AR and only the remaining candidates in the lowest level of merit shall be allotted to category 3, i.e., TSP, subject to rules of reservation for the notified number of vacancies in each of the category.

26. Therefore while doing the exercise of selection process, the

Commission having taken note of all these parameters, i.e., Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 69% vertical communal reservation as well as the method of selection to be adopted as contemplated under G.O.(Ms).No.10, has completed the task of selection process.

27. Accordingly, 69% of communal reservation has been strictlyfollowed, i.e., the total vacancies have been distributed among various communal categories like BC, BCM, MBC/DNC, SC, SCA and ST.

28. First the ranking has been put in based on the interse meritorious ranking, the top meritorious candidates have been selected for the 31% Open Competition. After having completed the 31% OC vacancies, in each of the communal category, the candidates were selected, thereby strictly as per 69% communal reservation, selection has been made and after having completed the task, then only the distribution among the three categories would be made possible. Accordingly by applying the method that has been envisaged under G.O.(Ms).No.10, the top ranking candidates have been allotted to Taluk Police, the next ranking candidates have been allotted to AR and only the remaining in the lowest level of ranking were allotted to TSP.

29. Only in this context, now the point has been raised or the groundshave been urged by the appellants stating that, under the Open quota, for the post of Sub-Inspectors in three categories as well as the Station Officers in Fire and Rescue Department, totally 594 vacancies, for all the 594 selection has been made. Like that in the Departmental quota the total vacancies in both the post, i.e., Sub Inspector of Police and Station Officer is 148 and for all the 148 posts selection have been made.

30. While making that selection, the Commission has exercised the selection method as indicated above. Accordingly, the first meritorious candidates have been distributed to the Taluk Police and next were given to AR and last meritorious candidates were given to TSP. Separately that kind of selection was made to the Station Officers also.

31. While making such selection in each of the communal category, for each of the three categories, insofar as the Backward Class is concerned, for the category of TSP, required was 23 but allotted only 21. Like that, in Station Officer, required was 27, allotted was 26, therefore totally out of

157, 154 was allotted, there were three candidates shortage. Like that in

MBC, three candidates were in shortage, in SC-5 excess candidates and SCA-1 excess candidate. The 3+3 shortage is nothing but 5+1 excess. Meaning thereby, over all for the entire vacancy of 594, in the open quota category for both the posts including the three categories, there has been no change in number of vacancies or number of persons selected by applying the 69% reservation. After having applied the 69% reservation and selected them, because of the implementation of G.O.(Ms).No.10 since top meritorious candidates first has to be gone to Taluk Police followed by AR and further followed by TSP, this kind of small jumping of candidates from one category to another category become inevitable and that inevitable jumping of candidates to the maximum of only six candidates out of 594 is only because of implementation of G.O.(Ms).No.10 but at no stretch of imagination it can be stated that either 69% reservation has not been followed or the three steps envisaged in Shobana’s case has not been followed.

32. In fact, 69% reservation has been strictly followed, three steps envisaged in Shobana’s case also is strictly followed as well as the allotment method to be adopted as contemplated under G.O.(Ms).No.10 has been followed. If all the three mandatory instructions given to the selection authorities since has been followed by the Commission it can never be stated that there has been any lacuna or infirmity in the selection process completed by the Commission. Justification to that effect as well as the clarification already been given by the Commission, which we have in fact extracted herein above.

33. Coming to the second and final query raised by the appellants as well as the impleading party, i.e., the Human Resources Management Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, i.e., the applicability of 20% horizontal PSTM quota.

34. In this context, we may refer to the PSTM Act, where Section 2(a) makes very clear that, “direct recruitment” means first appointment of a person to any services under the State in accordance with the rules or regulations or orders in force.

35. Under Section 2(f) it defines, the services under the State includesthe services under (i) the Government; (ii) the Legislature of the State; (iii) any local authority; (iv) any Corporation or Company owned or controlled by the Government; and (v) any other authority in respect of which the State Legislature has power to make laws.

36. Therefore the direct recruitment is nothing but the first appointment and services of the State is not only the Government but also Legislature, Local Authority, Corporation or any other authority under the State.

37. If we look at Section 3 which provides for preferential appointment or enabling provision to give this 20% reservation for PSTM candidates, the language used in Section 3 reads that “notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force and subject to

Section 5, 20% of all vacancies in appointment in the services under the State which are to be filled through direct recruitment shall be set apart on preferential basis to Persons Studied in Tamil Medium”.

38. Here the words are “direct recruitment”. If vacancies are filledthrough direct recruitment, 20% of all vacancies in the services under the

State shall be earmarked or shall be set apart on preferential basis to Persons Studied in Tamil Medium.

39. When that being the criteria fixed under the PSTM Act and here it is a direct recruitment, where if appointments are made a candidate in the first appointment certainly can claim the PSTM quota. Suppose the candidate already been in services either in Government or in any other authority as enumerated under Section 2(f), the first appointment quota would not be available to such candidates under PSTM category. This has been made very clear under the provisions of the PSTM Act itself. Therefore the same cannot be stretched upon to state that, in any number of recruitment a person who claims the PSTM quota has to be considered and the PSTM quota shall be extended to such candidate as submitted by the appellants as well as the impleading party which is totally against the very provisions of the PSTM Act itself.

40. Even though in this context, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral appearing for the impleading party has submitted that the restriction that has been given to Ex-servicemen and the Destitute Widow has not been made in respect of the PSTM candidate, therefore more than one number of occasions such kind of benefit can be claimed by a PSTM candidates, because of the provisions that is available in Act 14 of 2016, i.e., Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016, we are not impressed with the said arguments advanced by him for the simple reason that, Section 3 of the PSTM Act itself starts with the non obstante clause stating that “notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force”, which means, the PSTM Act will have a prevailing effect over any other law for the time being in force and therefore the 2016 Act cannot be taken for the rescue either for the appellants or for the impleading party to put forth their case that, such a PSTM quota can be extended for a incumbent employee of the Government or Governmental organisation for more than one occasion.

41. Such an interpretation is not at all possible and cannot be grantedbecause, once such an interpretation is given, the very purpose of the 20% PSTM quota provided under the PSTM Act itself would get defeated. The reason being that, the legislature thought it fit to give such a horizontal preferential quota of 20% for PSTM candidates only in order to give benefit to more and more number of PSTM candidates, thereby it would be an encouraging factor for the wards of the State of Tamil Nadu to undertake their studies from I Std till higher studies only in Tamil medium, so that they would get the preference in the job opportunities in the State of Tamil Nadu. That kind of encouraging factor is provided only to develop the mother tongue of majority people of Tamil Nadu, i.e., Tamil, since the legislation has been brought in. Such a noble object cannot be destroyed and defeated by giving such lenient interpretation as sought for by the appellants or impleading party to extend such PSTM benefit to the same person again and again, by thus such benefit would be denied to a new candidate or in other words, the benefit of PSTM quota would be prevented from being extended to more number of candidates if such an interpretation sought for is accepted by this Court.

42. Moreover in the report itself, the Commission has given clearexplanation and justification for the PSTM preference with the following contents :

“5. PSTM Preference – Clarification Regarding those already in employment under the state.

In the notification, it was clearly stipulated that the 20% reservation/concession under the Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) category would not be applicable to departmental candidates. However, in respect of direct recruitment, large number of individuals already employed under the State, including predominantly police personnel, have sought the benefit of 20% PSTM reservation. It is noticed that 84 such candidates, comes under the zone of consideration who are currently in Government service, who have applied claiming preference under the PSTM category.

On a careful reading of the Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Services under the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010 and the rules framed thereunder, it is evident that the Act applies only to unemployed individuals applying for direct recruitment, and not to those who are already employed in any service under the State or any other four services specified.

Relevant Statutory Definitions :

Section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act, 2010 defines “direct recruitment” as:

“first appointment of a person to any service under the State in accordance with the rules or regulations or orders in force.”

Similarly, Rule 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu PSTM Rules, 2010 reiterates:

“direct recruitment” means first appointment of a person to any service under the State in accordance with the rules or regulations or orders in force,

Rule 2(c) defines “services under the State” to include:

(i) Government;

(ii) the Legislature of the State;

(iii) any local authority;

(iv) any Corporation or company owned or controlled bythe Government; and

(v) any other authority in respect of which the StateLegislature has power to make laws.

Judicial Precedents:

1. In M. DuraiMurugan and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others – W.P. (MD) Nos. 2760 and 2761 of 2016, the Hon’ble (D.B) Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in paragraphs 24 and 25 held as follows:

“Rule 2(a) defines ‘direct recruitment’ as the first appointment of a person to any service under the State. There is no ambiguity in the expression used by the Legislature. The intention is clearly to benefit only those who are entering government service for the first time. As the petitioners therein were already in service, they were held ineligible for PSTM preference. The benefit under the Act cannot be extended to candidates already in employment.”

2. In S. Nithyanandhan vs. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, W.P. No. 5546 of 2019, decided on

27.02.2019, the Hon’ble High Court observed at paragraph 12 as follows:

“The definition of ‘direct recruitment’ unambiguously refers to the first entry of an unemployed person into public service through an open competitive process. There is no scope for extending this benefit to in-service candidates already employed under the State.”

From the above statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements, it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the PSTM reservation is to provide employment opportunities to unemployed youth under the State. It is not intended to promote or assist individuals who are already in government employment, whether for advancement within the same department or for securing a better position in a different department under the State. Hence PSTM preference is not applicable to those who are already in service under the State as defined in Rule 2(c).

Accordingly, in the present selection process, the status of the 84 candidates who were initially considered under the PSTM category – despite being already employed under the

State has been revised and they have been treated as NonPSTM candidates. Similarly, in case there is no PSTM candidate under Sports and Wards Quota then the NonPSTM candidates in the respective category is considered and selected as provided in section 6 of Act No 40 of 2010 which states that “6. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, where adequate number of qualified and suitable persons studied in Tamil medium are not available for appointment in the preferential vacancies, such unfilled vacancies shall be filled up with persons studied in other mediums within the respective category”. The final selection has been carried out based on this corrected classification.

6. Eligibility of Candidate under PSTM without Schooling of HSC:

The Inspector General of Police / Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB), in her letter C.No.1/NODAL OFFICER/TNUSRB/2025 dated 18.06.2025 addressed about the provisional selection of candidate K. Chitra (Enrolment No. 5800282) under the MBC/DNC PSTM category.

From the said communication, it is understood that candidate K. Chitra studied up to the 10th Standard in a Tamil Medium school, (regular) without studying the 11th Standard and directly appeared for the 12th Standard examination as a private candidate, and subsequently obtained B.Litt. degree through correspondence course. The TNUSRB rejected her claim for PSTM status on the ground that she had not studied the Higher Secondary Course (HSC) in a regular school, and therefore, did not fulfill the requirement of having studied the entire HSC through Tamil Medium.

Statutory Framework and Interpretation

The definition of a “Person Studied in Tamil Medium” (PSTM) was amended by Act 35 of 2020, and the relevant clause reads:

The definition of person studied in Tamil Medium is amended by Act 35 of 2020 as follows:

Section 2 “(d) “person studied in Tamil medium” means a person who has studied through Tamil medium of instruction up to the educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment in the rules or regulations or orders applicable to any appointment in the services under the State.

Explanation – For the purpose of this clause, – (i) in cases, where SSLC is prescribed as the educational qualification, one shall have studied up to SSLC through Tamil medium of instruction;

(ii) in cases, where a Higher Secondary Course is prescribed as the educational qualification, one shall have studied SSLC and the Higher Secondary Course through

Tamil medium of instruction;

(iii) in cases, where a Diploma is prescribed as the educational qualification, one shall have studied SSLC and the Diploma through Tamil medium of instruction or if the Diploma is obtained after completion of Higher Secondary

Course then one shall have studied SSLC, Higher Secondary Course and the Diploma through Tamil medium of instruction;

(iv) in cases, where a Degree is prescribed as the educational qualification, one shall have studied SSLC, Higher Secondary Course and the Degree through Tamil medium of instruction;

(v) in cases, where a Post-Graduate Degree is prescribed asthe educational qualification, one shall have studied SSLC, Higher Secondary Course, Degree and the Post-Graduate Degree through Tamil medium of instruction.”.

When the TNUSRB declined to consider the candidature of K. Chitra as PSTM since she has not studied Higher Secondary Course as defined in clause (iv) of definition mentioned supra, the candidate preferred writ petition W.P.No.3536 of 2024 in which the Hon’ble High Court of Madras ordered on 14.02.2024 as follows:

“5.Admittedly the petitioner had completed SSLC,

Higher Secondary Course and degree through Tamil Medium. However, the petitioner was not awarded any marks in the VIVA. Therefore, the respondents are directed to publish the marks obtained by the petitioner through VIVA and if the petitioner has scored marks within the zone of consideration the respondent are directed to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector of police, if found otherwise eligible, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

After the order of the Hon’ble High Court the Board by its order dated 01.03.2024 in C. No. D1/0493/2024. B.O.(R) No.11/2024 provisionally selected the candidate under MBC/DNC PSTM category.

The Hon’ble High Court Madras in W.P. No. 3536 of 2024, by order dated 14.02.2024, did not make any specific declaration regarding the petitioner’s eligibility under the PSTM category, but only directed consideration if otherwise eligible. Acting upon this TNUSRB provisionally selected her under the MBC/DNC PSTM category via B.O.(R) No.11/2024 dated 01.03.2024.

The Government of Tamil Nadu subsequently in G.O. No. 16 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 15.04.2025, clarified in Clause IV that:

“Candidates who did not attend school but appeared directly for the examination as private candidates and passed in Tamil Medium are not entitled to preference under the PSTM category.”

Further, in Letter No.2437/Police-III/2025-1 dated 24.05.2025, it was reiterated that: “Candidates who passed

10th or 12th Standard directly without studying the 9th or 11th Standard, though eligible to apply for direct recruitment, are not eligible for PSTM preference.”

Thus, candidate K. Chitra, having not attended school for the 11th and 12thStandards and having directly appeared privately for the 12th Standard examination, clearly falls outside the ambit of the amended statutory definition of a PSTM candidate. Thus K.Chitra cannot be considered under PSTM candidate.

43. Having taken into consideration of the afore discussed legal position as well as the factual matrix and after having gone through the report submitted by the Commission and the compliance report filed in this regard, we are fully satisfied that Commission has done a wonderful exercise of completing the selection process as has been directed by this Court through the impugned order.

44. Once the order having been accepted and acted upon, the appellants cannot turn around and file this belated appeal by raising some grounds which are even otherwise untenable. Therefore on these grounds, no successful challenge can be made against the direction given by the writ court through the impugned order. In the result, the appeal has to fail for want of merits.

45. In the upshot, we are inclined to dismiss the writ appeal with the following further directions:

(i) That the report submitted by the Hon’ble

Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar, Former Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir, on the recruitment in question as directed by the writ court through the impugned order dated 22.04.2025 shall be published and based on which, the TNUSRB shall release the final selection list of candidates for the direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police as well as the Station Officer in the Fire and Rescue Department-2023, within a period of 30 days (Thirty days) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) Along with the Report of the Commission, the learned Judge has filed a compliance report also, where it has been indicated that the initial remuneration as ordered by the writ court in the order impugned has already been paid to him and the honorarium for the two officers who assisted the learned Judge was sanctioned but that was not paid at the time when the compliance report dated 04.08.2025

was filed.

(iii) In this context, a further direction is hereby given that, the appellants shall pay an additional remuneration of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.Paul

Vasanthakumar, Former Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iv) Insofar as other two assisting Officers are concerned, if the initial honorarium of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) each already paid, the final honorarium of further Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) each also shall be paid by the Appellants within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

45. With these directions, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(R.S.K., J.) (H.C., J.)

08.10.2025

Index : Yes

Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes tsvn

1. The Director General of Police / Chairman

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,

Old Commissioner of Police Complex,

Pantheon Road,

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008

2. The Member Secretary

Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,

Old Commissioner of Police Complex,