Madras High Court· 09 September 2026

Is the principle laid down on PSTM reservation applicable only to the notification impugned in that case?

M.Premkumar v. THE TAMILNADU Public SERVICE COMMISSION

WP.1639/2022 · 2026:MHC:3732 · W.P.No.1639 of 2022
Coram: Justice C.Kumarappan

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.2(d) Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 2010 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

The principle laid down on PSTM reservation is not applicable only to the notification impugned in that case.

No. The principle laid down on PSTM reservation is not applicable only to the notification impugned in that case. The same principle was applied by a Division Bench to a different notification and appointment was directed, and that order was confirmed by the Supreme Court. (¶13)

Headnote

Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 2010 — s.2(d) — Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 2020 — Preferential appointment — Persons studied in Tamil Medium — Certificate verification — Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 2010 — s.2(d) — PSTM reservation — Tamil medium from elementary education — Held: To claim the preferential PSTM quota a candidate must have studied in Tamil medium from the stage of elementary education till and including the prescribed qualification. (¶12, 17) Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 2020 — Clarificatory and curative amendment — Retrospective operation — Held further: The amendment is clarificatory and curative, and governs recruitments notified before it, whichever notification is in question. (¶10, 11) Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 2010 — Fresh PSTM selection list — Supernumerary accommodation — Held further: Where selection proceeded on degree-level certificates alone, a fresh PSTM list must be prepared without disturbing appointments already made. Writ petition allowed with directions. (¶18, 21)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 13The 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.

Acts & Sections

s.2(d) Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 2010Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 2020

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M.Premkumar v. THE TAMILNADU Public SERVICE COMMISSION — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Must a candidate have studied in Tamil medium from elementary education till the prescribed qualification to claim the PSTM quota?Is Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 2020 clarificatory and applicable retrospectively from the date of the earlier Act 40 of 2010?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections