Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 28034
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.10.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.No.3203 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.4805 of 2021 S.Arivuselvan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep. by the Secretary, TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner, Department of Archaeology, Government of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Valarchi Valaagam, Tamil Salai, Chennai - 600 008.
3.K.Vasanthakumar
4.M.Suresh
5.R.Subhashini ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records pertaining to the order Na.Ka.No.A1/6922/2014 dated 23.01.2021 read with the Selection Notification dated 16.12.2020 issued by the 1st respondent, Quash the same to the extent they have selected and appointed the respondents 3 to 5 as invalid and consequently direct the respondents to select the petitioner to the post of Archaeological Officer under the MBC category with all consequential benefits pursuant to the Advertisement No.563 Notification No.33/2019 dated 28.11.2019 issued by the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Meenakshi For Respondents : Mr.Karthikrajan Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader for R2 Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar for R3 to R5
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the selection notification dated 16.12.2020 under which the private respondents have been declared to be selected. The petitioner has challenged the impugned selection list on the ground that the private respondents have not studied Tamil as one of the subjects in Degree course, which is a mandatory educational qualification required for getting selected to the post of Archaeological Officer in the Archaeology Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu.
2. According to the petitioner, the respective private respondents have not studied Tamil as a language paper in their respective Degrees and therefore, they are ineligible to get selected as Archaeological Officer in the Archaeology Department as per the notification issued by the respondents inviting candidates for selection.
3. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission viz., the first respondent herein denying the allegations of the petitioner. They would submit that the private respondents have satisfied the educational requirements for being appointed as Archaeological Officers as per the notification, as their medium of instruction in the graduation level was Tamil.
4. The private respondents have also filed their separate counters before this Court, denying the contention of the petitioner and in particular, they have highlighted the courses contained in the paper 'Art' through Tamil Literature in paragraph No.9 which is extracted hereunder:
| Sl.No. | Syllabus | 1998 to 2013 (Non Semester Pattern) | 2014 onwards (Semester Pattern) | |
| 1 | Nedunelvaadai | Lines 72 - 130 | Art Through Tamil Literature (TZD) | Tamil I BTA/BTS/ BTP 1:1:01 |
| 2 | Maduraikanchi | Lines 351-370 | ||
| 3 | Pattinapalai | Lines 142 - 157 | ||
| 4 | Pari Paadal | Verses on Sevvel & Thirumaal | Tamil II BTA/BTS/ BTP 2:1:08 | |
| 5 | Silappathigaram | Kunrak Kurvak,Vettava Vari, Aranketruk Khaadai | ||
| 6 | Naalayira Divya Prabandam | Periyazhvar Pasurangal | ||
| 7 | Thevaarathil Appar Pasurangal | Descriptions of different temples and special features of Murthys | Tamil III BTA/BTS/ BTP 3:1:15 | |
| 8 | Periya Puranam | Sivamoorthangal | ||
| 9 | Kalingathuparani | Natarajar, Bichadanar, Arthanaareswara, Somaskandhar, Kalasambara, Dakshinamoorthi, Sandikeswarar, Possalar Naayanar Verses Nos.1 - 11 | ||
| 10 | Kambha Ramayanam | Verse No.1 Negerappadalam 13, 19, 23 - 30 | Tamil IV BTA/BTS/ BTP 4:1:22 | |
| 11 | Seevagasindhamani | Kaanthruvaththal ayar |
| Sl.No. | Syllabus | 1998 to 2013 (Non Semester Pattern) | 2014 onwards (Semester Pattern) | |
| Illambhagam Verse 590-295 | ||||
| 12 | Thanigaipuranam | A scene of Agathiyar's getting Arul, 16 Dhiyaana slokaas of Lord Subramania |
5. They have also stated that their medium of instruction was only in Tamil and therefore, they would contend that they have satisfied the educational qualification required for appointment and further, they would submit that having secured higher marks than the petitioner, the first respondent Commission has duly selected them for the invited posts and therefore, there is no illegality in the selection.
6. Heard Ms.S.Meenakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Karthikrajan, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent No.2 and Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos.3 to 5.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the following:
a) RTI Application sent by the petitioner dated 19.01.2021;
b) RTI Application sent by Mr.John Juvan dated 19.01.2021;
c) RTI Reply dated 05.02.2021.
8. After referring to the aforementioned documents / orders, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the RTI reply, it is clear that the Government College of Architecture and Sculpture at Mahabalipuram where the private respondents did their graduation did not have Tamil language as part of their curricu
