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.704 of 2025

AND

C.M.P.No.6021 of 2025

The Teachers Recruitment Board

Rep. by its Member Secretary

DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006 .. Appellant

Vs.

1.P.Annakodi

2.The State of Tamil Nadu

Rep. by its Secretary

School Education Department

Fort St. George

Chennai 600 009

3.The Director of School Education

DPI Campus, College Road

Chennai 600 006 .. Respondents

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent challenging the order

dated 28.08.2024 in W.P.No.24452 of 2024.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.R.Siddharth Standing Counsel For R1 : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy Senior Counsel for Ms.S.Suneetha For RR2 and 3 : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Additional Government Pleader

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra-court appeal has been directed against the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.24452 of 2024.

2.The appellant viz., the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB), who stood as

2^nd respondent before the writ Court, called for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant.

3.For the post of B.T. Assistant (History), since the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner was holding the eligible qualification, she applied for the said post under the Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) category.

4.Though the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner secured 61.50 marks and was also called for certificate verification, subsequently, the TRB released a list of non- selected candidates or ineligible candidates on 25.07.2024, in which, the name of the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner since was included, challenging the same, the said writ petition was filed.

5. The reason for inclusion of the name of the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner in the said list dated 25.07.2024 is that, even though she had applied under the PSTM category and had produced certificates with respect to the qualification for holding the said post, to prove that she pursued +1 and +2 in Tamil medium, she had not produced the relevant certificate.

6.This aspect was considered by the learned writ Court and by quoting two earlier decisions, the writ Court had come to a conclusion that insofar as the medium of instruction of +1 of the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner is concerned, she had produced the certificate issued by the Head Master of the school concerned as if she studied in Tamil medium, since +1 examination would be conducted only at the school level. Insofar as +2 is concerned, since the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner appeared as a private candidate, the certificate issued by the Directorate of Government Examinations, to establish that she had written her +2 examination only in Tamil with registration No.904722 and therefore, the certificate since already been made available with the TRB that are produced by the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner, would be enough to come to the conclusion that she had completed her +2 in Tamil medium and hence, she would become eligible under the PSTM category. Therefore, a direction has been given by the writ Court to consider the candidature of the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner under the PSTM category and therefore, she comes under the zone of consideration on merit by virtue of the marks secured and her candidature be forwarded to the appointing authority. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the writ Court dated

28.08.2024, the present appeal has been directed.

7.Heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/TRB, who would submit that insofar as the medium of instruction of the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner in +1 and +2 is concerned, though it was claimed by her that she studied +1 in Tamil medium based on the certificate issued by the Head Master of the school concerned, at the time of certificate verification, there was no proof on the part of the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner that she had uploa