Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2568 (MAD)

C. Selvakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu

2025-06-05

A.D.MARIA CLETE, S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2025
JUDGMENT : S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. The present intra-court appeals have been instituted challenging the writ orders dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants. 2. The grievance of the appellants is that Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) Certificate has not been issued by the Directorate of Government Examinations for undergoing the certificate course, which resulted in denial of opportunity to the appellants, who participated in the recruitment process under the quota allotted for the persons studied in Tamil medium. 3. The respective learned counsels appearing for the appellants would mainly contend that the candidates, who undergone the course, are entitled for the certificate stating as to whether they had undergone the course in Tamil medium or in any other medium. When the appellants made applications seeking PSTM Certificate, their applications were not considered and came to be rejected by the respondents. Thus, the appellants filed the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned orders, dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred the present writ appeals. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Teachers Recruitment Board would oppose the contentions of the appellants by stating that the issue on hand is no more res integra. The Division Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court has already elaborately considered the issue on hand and delivered a judgment dated 16.03.2020 in W.A.Nos.404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 412 and 413 of 2020 (The Secretary, Department of School Education and others vs. R.Vijayalakshmi) and therefore, the present writ appeals deserve to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsels appearing for the respective appellants relied on the interim direction issued by this Court in the present writ appeals directing the respondent – Department to furnish the particulars relating to issuance of PSTM Certificates and the reason for rejection of the appellants' applications. 6. In this context, the Director of Government Examinations filed an affidavit, dated Nil, September, 2024. The said affidavit reveals that the Directorate of Government Examinations conducted examinations for the individual private candidates only and do not run any institutions or conduct any training or coaching classes for the candidates, who applied for lower or higher grade examination. The primary function of the Directorate is only to conduct examinations. Hence, questioning the verification done for such institutions whether they are imparting such courses only in Tamil language does not arise. The primary function of the Directorate is only to conduct examinations. Hence, questioning the verification done for such institutions whether they are imparting such courses only in Tamil language does not arise. In the said affidavit, the Director of Government Examinations has further stated that the candidates, who possess the educational qualification as prescribed, alone are eligible to apply for lower and higher grade technical examinations. The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under: “LOWER GRADE Candidates who apply for LOWER GRADE should have passed 8 th standard (ESLC) or Equivalent Examinations in a recognized school or appeared as private candidate with English as one among the Subjects as per Tamilnadu Educational Rules. HIGHER GRADE Candidates who apply for HIGHER GRADE should have passed 10 th standard (SSLC) or Equivalent Examinations in a recognized school or appeared as private candidate as per Tamilnadu Educational Rules. (Or) Candidates who apply for HIGHER GRADE in a particular subject should have passed LOWER GRADE in the same subject. 6. It is submitted that this Directorate is not at all connected with private institutions and did not issue PSTM certificates to candidates though so called private institutions. 7. It is submitted that the Question papers were issued to the private candidates only in bilingual (Tamil & English). 8. It is submitted that this Directorate of Government Examinations do not have any practice of issuing PSTM certificate to that effect that a particular candidate belongs to Tamil medium or English medium as this Directorate do not conduct any course to that effect. Hence we are not able to issue PSTM Certificates.” 7. The above details given by the Directorate of Government Examinations reveal that they do not have any practice of issuing PSTM Certificate to the effect that a particular candidate studied the course either in Tamil medium or English medium as they do not conduct any course to that effect and hence, they are not in a position to issue PSTM Certificates. We are of the view that the said reason cannot be brushed aside. When the Directorate of Government Examinations is neither running any institution nor conducting any course, they have rightly said that they do not have any practice of issuing PSTM Certificate. 8. We are of the view that the said reason cannot be brushed aside. When the Directorate of Government Examinations is neither running any institution nor conducting any course, they have rightly said that they do not have any practice of issuing PSTM Certificate. 8. The above position was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the common judgment dated 16.03.2020 in W.A.Nos.404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 412 and 413 of 2020, cited supra. The relevant paragraph stands extracted hereunder: “37. We are also of the considered opinion that all the writ petitioners with open eyes had applied Online against the notification, which has set out the requirement of certificates as indicated above in detail. Annexure-II read with Claus 9 of the notification, therefore, was well known to the respondents/petitioners and they did not challenge the same. Learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, right in his submission that this excuse cannot be set up to claim a right which is otherwise not available and also does not give rise to any legitimate expectation.” 9. In view of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court, in the above cited decision, has already elaborately considered the issue on hand, we are of the view that there is no reason for this Court to further consider the other grounds raised between the parties to the lis. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the writ orders. 10. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.