IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.10.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

W.A.No.3006 of 2025

M.Padmavathy .. Appellant

Vs.

1. The Director of School Education

Government of Tamil Nadu, College Road

Chennai – 600 006.

2. The Secretary

Teachers Recruitment Board

4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai

D.P.I.Complex, College Road

Chennai – 600 006.

3. S.Sakthi

4. The Director of Government Examination

Directorate of Government Examination

DPI Campus, College Road

Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondents

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against

the order made in W.P.No.15779 of 2020 dated 18.12.2023.

For the Appellant/Party-in-Person : Ms.M.Padmavathy For the Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan

Addl. Advocate General

assisted by

Mr.C.Kathiravan

Standing Counsel for R2

Mr.J.C.Durairaj

Additional Govt. Pleader

for R1 and R4

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 18.12.2023 made in W.P.No.15779 of 2020.

2. That the present appellant was the writ petitioner who applied for appointment to the post of Special Teacher in Music pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent Teacher Recruitment Board, In short, “TRB”. dated 26.07.2017. One post of Music Teacher since has been reserved vertically for Scheduled Tribe category, which has further been reserved horizontally for PSTM category, that is Persons Studied in Tamil Medium.

3. Though at the time of making application, the writ petitioner/appellant claimed that she studied in Tamil Medium and based on which, the provisional selection list was issued on 13.08.2018, where the name of the writ petitioner/appellant was included, subsequently, in the final list which was prepared by the TRB, the name of the writ petitioner/appellant was removed or not included. As against which, the writ petitioner/appellant had approached the Writ Court by filing the said writ petition.

4. It is the contention of the writ petitioner/appellant, who appears as Party-in-Person before this Court, that, the writ petitioner/appellant studied the entire qualification in Tamil Medium, including 10^th Standard. That is the reason why she claims appointment under the PSTM quota. The same having been considered, her name was included in the provisional list and subsequently, in the final selection list, her name has been excluded for no fault of her and despite she having completed the entire qualification in Tamil Medium, non-selection of the writ petitioner/appellant under the PSTM quota is bad in law and also arbitrary. Therefore, when that was projected before the Writ Court, the Writ Court has not considered her case in proper perspective, hence, the writ petitioner/appellant was constrained to prefer the present intra-Court appeal. Therefore, the writ petitioner/appellant, who appears Party-in-Person, seeks indulgence of this Court as against the impugned order passed by the Writ Court.

5. Heard Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TRB/respondent 2 and Mr.J.C.Durairaj, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 4.

6. It is the case of the TRB, which was considered and recorded by the learned Judge in the impugned order, that, though on the basis of the claim made by the writ petitioner/appellant, that she studied the entire qualification in Tamil Medium, initially, she was considered in the Tamil Medium quota and her name has been included in the provisional list, subsequently, when certificates were verified, since there have been no certificates to establish that the writ petitioner/appellant has studied 10^th Standard SSLC in Tamil Medium and since the certificates to that effect have not been produced, as the last date for producing such certificates was over as early as on 18.08.2017, the TRB could not select the writ petition