Must a candidate have studied in Tamil medium from elementary education till the prescribed qualification to claim the PSTM quota?

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to strictly implement the directions of this Court in G.Sakthi Rao v. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu (W.P.(MD) No.8025 of 2020, dated 22.03.2021), by ensuring that reservation under the PSTM category is given only to candidates who have studied their entire education from the first standard in Tamil Medium, by making thorough verification of the educational certificates of all candidates under the PSTM category from the first standard onwards, and thereafter finalising the list of selected candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce.

The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Petition are that, the first respondent issued Notification No.34 of 2019, dated 09.12.2019, for filling up the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce and called for applications for 11 vacancies. Out of the 11 vacancies, two were identified under the PSTM category, one being PSTM General and the other being PSTM BC. The petitioner belongs to the BC category. Therefore, according to his submission, he is entitled to compete for the two PSTM vacancies. It is the specific submission of the petitioner that the respondents did not follow the judgment in G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra). Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to strictly implement the directions of the said judgment by ensuring that reservation under the PSTM category is given only to candidates who have studied their entire education from the first standard in Tamil Medium till they attained the required qualification.

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, pursuant to Notification No.34 of 2019, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce and participated in the examination, certificate verification and counselling. However, his name did not find a place in the selection list. On the other hand, the first respondent selected M.Balasubramani and G.Esther Rani. It is his submission that the said two persons did not study in Tamil Medium from the first standard till they obtained their degree. On the other hand, the petitioner is a fully qualified PSTM candidate, as he had studied from the first standard up to the degree level in Tamil Medium. 3.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner secured 313 marks and stood at Serial No.31 in the overall rank list. He would further submit that, if the first respondent had strictly followed the judgment in G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra), in letter and spirit, the selected persons, namely, M.Balasubramani and G.Esther Rani, would fall within the category of ineligible candidates, as they did not possess PSTM certificates from the first standard. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is the only person who is entitled to be appointed under the PSTM category, as the other candidates who competed under the PSTM category had not studied in Tamil Medium from the first standard upto the degree. Hence, he seeks a direction to fill up the PSTM category post in accordance with the judgment in G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra). 4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent would vehemently contend that, along with the other candidates, the petitioner was also provisionally admitted for the Oral Test. He would further submit that, after the conduct of the Oral Test, the rank list for the said recruitment was published on 07.01.2022, and the candidates placed in the rank list were called to attend counselling on 19.01.2022. Though the petitioner was eligible to be considered against the vacancies reserved for GT (G), GT (G) (PSTM), BC (G) and BC (G) (PSTM) categories, he secured 313 marks and stood at Rank No.31 for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce. In the said counselling, the vacancies were filled up based on merit and the rule of reservation. 4.1. Further, according to the learned Standing Counsel, two candidates, namely, M.Balasubramani and G.Esther Rani, were selected against the two vacancies reserved for the PSTM category. When the turn of the petitioner came to be considered under the PSTM category, there was no vacancy. Therefore, he was not selected. He would further submit that the petitioner was placed in the Reserve List under the GT (G) (PSTM) and BC (G) (PSTM) categories. The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra) is applicable only to Notification No.1 of 2020. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the present set of facts. He would further submit that the selected persons had already been appointed and, at this length of time, any interference would create a chaotic situation. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the second and third respondents adopted the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent. It is his further submission that the two persons were appointed as Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical) and Assistant Superintendent (Chemical Wing) in Category 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industries Service for the year 2019, vide G.O. (3D) No.02, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Department (E.1.1), dated 09.06.2022. Therefore, he would submit that, since the petitioner did not come within the zone of consideration, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

While considering the submissions made by either side, most of the factual aspects are not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is eligible to be considered under the GT (G) (PSTM) and BC (G) (PSTM) categories. Further, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is first in the Reserve List under both the GT (G) (PSTM) and BC (G) (PSTM) categories. Therefore, it is amply clear that, in the present pattern of selection under the PSTM category, he has secured the second rank in both the GT (G) (PSTM) and BC (G) (PSTM) categories. Admittedly, the persons who were selected, namely, M.Balasubramani and G.Esther Rani, had secured more marks than the petitioner, namely, 357 and 352.25 marks, respectively, whereas the petitioner had secured only 313 marks.

Now, the only disputed issue in the present case is whether the selectees, namely, M.Balasubramani and G.Esther Rani, had studied in Tamil Medium from the first standard up to the required degree qualification.

According to the petitioner, the selection under this recruitment should also be made in accordance with the judgment in G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra), whereas the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that, according to the G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra), judgment, there is a specific reference that the said judgement applicable against the notification impugned in the G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra). He would submit that, since the present notification is different, the above judgement it is not applicable to present facts of the case. However, this Court is not in a position to agree with the above submissions.

At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in The Chirman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission v. A.Anbalagan (W.P.(MD) No.1500 of 2022, dated 28.11.2025), wherein, when another Notification No.1 of 2019 was challenged, this Court, by applying the judgment in G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra) and the subsequent Government Order issued by the Government in pursuance of the said judgment under Act 35 of 2020, held that, since the amendment was clarificatory and curative in nature. Therefore, it has to be applied retrospectively from the date of the initial Government Order passed under Act 40 of 2010.

In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the appeal filed against the judgment in G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra), in SLP (Civil) Nos.3364 and 3367 of 2022, vide judgment dated 31.07.2023, wherein, at paragraph 10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Act 35 of 2020 is clarificatory in nature. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereinunder:- ‘10.When we look at the 2010 enactment in the above light, the amendment incorporated in the year 2020 has to be construed as nothing more than a clarificatory amendment of what was originally provided for in the 2010 Act. Some ambiguity remained in the interpretation of the term “persons studied in Tamil Medium” as defined under Section 2(d). The amending Act of 2020 is only to ensure proper construction of Section 2(d) to achieve the objective of the Act so that only those who have pursued their education in Tamil medium, would be entitled to complete for 20% of the jobs in the State earmarked for them.'

Further, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court in A.Anbalagan’s case (cited supra), which reads as follows:- “12.Therefore, it is amply clear that the phrase ‘qualification prescribed’ would include study from the stage of elementary education till the attainment of the required qualification prescribed for the post. Accordingly, and to have the benefit of preferential PSTM quota, the law stands settled that the candidate should have studied in Tamil medium from the stage of elementary education till, and including, the prescribed degree.” In the above judgment, this Court has held that even in respect of any recruitment that had taken place prior to Act 35 of 2020, the same must also be considered in accordance with the amended provision, as the amendment is only curative and clarificatory in nature.

The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent that G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra) is applicable only to Notification No.1 of 2020 also cannot be accepted, as this Court, in A.Anbalagan’s case (cited supra), applied the principle laid down in G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra) to Notification No.1 of 2019 and directed the appointment of a person who had studied in Tamil Medium throughout, upto and including the qualifying course. The said order was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.15228 of 2026, dated 29.07.2026. Therefore, the foremost contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent that G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra) is applicable only to Notification No.1 of 2020 is liable to be rejected.

In the case in hand, this Court, by order dated 14.09.2026, directed the first respondent to submit whether the other candidates had submitted their PSTM certificates covering their studies from first standard onwards. In this regard, the Deputy Secretary of the first respondent has filed a Positional Note. For ready reference, the same is depicted in the scanned image hereinbelow:-

According to the above Positional Note, except the petitioner, the other candidates were given only degree-level PSTM certificates and had not submitted certificates covering their earlier education. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that, according to the policy prevailing at the relevant point of time, the degree certificate alone was received, and whether the selected candidates possessed PSTM certificates covering their initial studies and entire education, will be verified.

From the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, this Court could very well arrive at a conclusion that the selection process followed by the first respondent under the PSTM category was not in accordance with the ratio laid down in G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra), and that the candidates were selected only on the basis of the then prevailing policy qua based upon the tamil medium study in the qualifying degree and not from the beginning qua from first standard

In the case in hand, as per the Positional Note, except the petitioner, the other candidates PSTM certificates are only for their degree qualification. Whereas the petitioner possessed PSTM certificates covering his entire studies upto the qualified degree. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner squarely comes within the definition of a PSTM candidate as laid down in G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra). However, on account of not securing marks over and above the other candidates, he was not considered.

Now, based upon the Positional Note, it is amply clear that M.Balasubramani and G.Esther Rani were appointed only on the basis of their degree-level PSTM certificates. However, if G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra) is strictly applied, as per the fact discussed hereinabove, there is a possibility that, they would not be qualified for appointment. Nevertheless, at this length of time, and that they being not parties to this Writ Petition, this Court does not want to disturb their appointments, as even according to the respondents, the appointments were made based upon the then prevailing policy and understanding of the first respondent about PSTM reservation. Therefore, the selectees cannot be blamed or prejudiced at this length of time.

In a similar situation, in A.Anbalagan’s case (cited supra), this Court has held as follows:- “24. We however concur with the writ Court that the entire list of PSTM candidates for the year 2019 need not be disturbed on this account. The second respondent will prepare a selection list for PSTM category in line with the directions given in Sakthi Rao, and if the writ petitioner comes within the merit list, he will be accommodated in a supernumerary post. 25. He is entitled to continuity of service from the date of joining of the last candidate who had been selected pursuant to the selection held against the 2019 Notification, and the writ petitioner will be placed at the bottom of the list with all consequential benefit of seniority increment, though sans financial benefits. This exercise will be completed within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Since this case seems to be identical in nature, this Court would like to adopt the same course of action as laid down in A.Anbalagan’s case (cited supra).

At this juncture, this Court would also like to mention that the first respondent has now issued Notification No.8 of 2026, dated 31.08.2026, calling for applications for the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Technical) against five vacancies, which discloses the availability of vacancies.

Be that as it may, the above detailed discussion would makes it clear that the first respondent has to select candidates for PSTM reservation as per the judgement in G.Sakthi Rao’s case (cited supra). Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the same is allowed, and the following directions are issued:-