PSTM reservation is not applicable to in-service candidates as established by the Division Bench ruling.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned recruitment notification dated 08.03.2022, issued by the third respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, Clause-4 of the impugned recruitment notification is arbitrary and illegal. According to him, PSTM reservation under the impugned recruitment notification applies to him as well. Being an in-service candidate, the petitioner claims that he is also eligible to apply for the subject post as per the impugned recruitment notification dated 08.03.2022 under the PSTM Category.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that a clarification has been issued by the office of the respondents through their communication dated 08.08.2023 that if the candidate belongs to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes, even an in-service candidate is eligible to apply for the subject post under the PSTM Category.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 08.10.2025, in the case of the Director General of Police / Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board vs. S.Mohamed Aslam and others, rendered in W.A.No. 2552 of 2025 and would submit that the Division Bench has categorically held that in-service candidate cannot apply under the PSTM Category. He referred to the relevant portion of the said decision, which makes it clear that PSTM category preference is not applicable to those, who are already in service under the State. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is re-produced hereunder:

“From the above statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements, it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the PSTM reservation is to provide employment opportunities to unemployed youth under the State. It is not intended to promote or assist individuals who are already in government employment, whether for advancement within the same department or for securing a better position in a different department under the State. Hence PSTM preference is not applicable to those who are already in service under the State as defined in Rule 2(c).”

5. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner once again reiterates that in view of the clarification issued by the office of the respondents through their communication dated 08.08.2023, the petitioner is still eligible to apply for the post even though he is an in-service candidate, the said argument will not hold water, since this Court is bound by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, in the aforesaid decision, has categorically held that PSTM category preference is not applicable to those, who are already in service under the State. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.