The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Services under the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010, and its amendments, particularly regarding the definition of 'Persons Studied in Tamil Medium' and the requirements for evidence of studying in Tamil medium.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner as a BC General PSTM candidate and based on the marks obtained by him, select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Draftsman in Survey and Settlement Wing or Surveyor-cum-Assistant Draughtsman in Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Department as notified under the Recruitment Notification in Notification No.18/2022 issued by the 3rd respondent Advertisement No.622 dt.29.07.2022.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner as a BC General PSTM candidate and based on the marks obtained by him, select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Draftsman in Survey and Settlement Wing or Surveyor-cum-Assistant Draughtsman in Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Department as notified under the Recruitment Notification in Notification No.18/2022 issued by the 3rd respondent through Advertisement No.622 dated 29.07.2022.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has studied in Tamil medium from first standard to SSLC and on completion of SSLC he joined as Draughtsman [Civil] in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Ambattur, Chennai during the period August 2011 to July 2013. The said course was affiliated to National Council for Vocation Training [NCVT]. The said Draughtsmand [Civil] Course was conducted in Tamil medium and he took up the examination in Tamil. He also registered with the District Employment Exchange, Thiruvannamalai District that his medium of instruction for SSLC and NTC/ITI as Tamil medium. The Principal of the Institute have also issued a PSTM certificate dated 28.02.2020 to the extent that he had studied the said course in Tamil medium. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the post of Surveyor cum Assistant Draftsman. He secured 285 marks. It is also his contention that the mark list itself clearly indicate that the petitioner''s category has been shown as PSTM. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the persons who have secured lessor marks have been appointed in the post of Draftsman. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. The third respondent filed a counter wherein it is stated that by clarification on Medium of instruction in Industrial Trainining Institute and as per their communication, they have not issued any guidelines to conduct ITI courses in English only. It is their further contention that the petitioner had made a wrong claim in the online application for PSTM and therefore, as per Commission Notification, applicants request has been rejected. Referring to para 13 [B][i] [v] [vi] the Commission''s Notification, which reads as follows :

“13 [B] [i] 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, as amended by Act 35 of 2020, Persons 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 of regulations or orders applicable to any appointment in the services under the State.

13 [B] [v] Failure to upload such documents at the time of submission of online application as evidence for ''Persons Studied in Tamil Medium'' for all educational qualification upto the educational qualification prescribed, shall result in the rejection of candidature after due process.

13 [B] [vi] Documents uploaded at the time of submission of online application as proof of having studied in Tamil medium, for the partial duration of any course/ private appearance at any examination, shall not be accepted and shall result in the rejection of candidature after due process.”

Hence, it is their contention that the instructions issued by the Commissioner are mandatory in the Courts of law. Hence, the petitioner is