The introduction of a Tamil qualifying paper for recruitment does not violate candidates' rights if it is a legitimate policy decision; changing selection criteria post-process is lawful if properly executed.

ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the imposition of a qualifying paper in Tamil for the purpose of selection and appointment of Professors, through G.O. Ms. Nos.230 & 231, Higher Education Department dated 6.10.2025, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, contending that such imposition seriously prejudices candidates of non-tamil major subjects.

2. W.M.P. No.54227 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners seeking permission of the Court to permit the petitioners to file a single writ petition and considering the nature of relief sought for and the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, the miscellaneous petition is ordered permitting the petitioners to file a single writ petition upon payment of single court fee.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they possesses the necessary qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Government Arts and Science Colleges and they have been serving as Guest Lecturers/consolidated pay staff in Government Colleges and they have also completed NET/SET/SLET qualifications. It is further averred by the petitioners that they had participated in the earlier process of selection initiated by the 3rd respondent vide notification No.12/2019 dated 28.8.2019 and 4.10.2019, wherein certificate verification was completed and the petitioners were found eligible for the interview.

4. It is the further averment of the petitioners that due to the Election Code of Conduct during the 2021 elections, the earlier recruitment process was abruptly stopped. However, instead of resuming the said selection process after completion of election, the recruitment process was started afresh by issuance of Notification No.04/2025 dated 16.10.2025. Through the said recruitment process, on the basis of G.O. Ms. No.230 & 231 dated 6.10.2025, a new scheme of examination was formulated and fresh conditions for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors was codified. Under the new scheme, a compulsory tamil qualifying paper was introduced for all candidates without providing any exemption even in respect of candidates who had studied Tamil as a major subject; for candidates who studied in Tamil Medium and also for candidates, who have already qualified in earlier recruitment processes.

5. It is the further averment of the petitioners that the petitioners have studied Tamil upto UG level and many hold Tamil medium degrees or Tamil major degrees, yet they are compelled to take a qualifying paper in Tamil. It is further averred that a condition has been imposed wherein Part-B of Paper-I and Paper-II will be evaluated only if a candidate secures 40% in the Tamil qualifying paper, which seriously prejudices candidates of non-Tamil major subjects.

6. It is the further averment of the petitioners that Paper-II is a descriptive paper covering broad general topics, which is a single-question, which disproportionately affects subject-specialized candidates and it is practically impossible to prepare within the short gap of about 20 days particularly for Guest Lecturers working 5 to 6 days in a week. It is therefore the averment of the petitioners that the action of the respondents in cancelling the earlier recruitment and introducing a new selection method is contrary to the settled law that rules of the game cannot be changed mid- process and in this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court inK. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. 2008 (3) SCC 512 andMaharashtra SRTC Vs. Rajendra Mandve, 2001 (10) SCC 51 . It is the further averment of the petitioners that as participants under the earlier notification, which was abruptly stopped m