IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR S.Tharansing S/o.Shanmugam ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Director of School Education D.P.I.Campus, College Road Chennai-600 006.

2. The Deputy Director Teachers Recruitment Board D.P.I.Campus, College Road Chennai-600 006. … Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records pertaining to the rejection letter dated 21.02.2017 in O.Mu.En.47/A3/2017 issued by the 2^nd respondent pursuant to “Direct Recruitment of Post Graduate Assistants based on Written Competitive Examination 2014-2015” conducted by the 2^nd respondent, quash and consequently, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Post Graduate Assistant in History subject.

For Petitioner : Ms.Rinsup Ria .M For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari Government Advocate, for R1 Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Siddharth Standing Counsel, for R2 *****

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the rejection of his request to include his name in the selection list for the post of Post Graduate Assistant (History) for the academic years 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 under the Scheduled Caste (General Tamil) category.

2. The petitioner asserts that he obtained a B.A. (History) degree from Annamalai University, completed M.A. (History) through Distance Education from Alagappa University, and also acquired a B.Ed. degree in the year 2010 from PRIST University.

3. The respondents issued a notification dated 07.11.2014 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Assistants through a written competitive examination to fill up 1,807 vacant posts, of which 198 posts were earmarked for Post Graduate Assistant (History). The petitioner applied for the said post. Out of a total of 150 marks, the petitioner secured 98 marks in the written examination and one mark towards Employment Registration Seniority. However, the petitioner was not considered for selection, necessitating the filing of the present writ petition.

4. Ms. Rinsup Ria. M, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant (History), his name was not included in the selection list solely on the ground that he had pursued the postgraduate and B.Ed. courses simultaneously. It was further contended that one Babu, who had also pursued the P.G. and B.Ed. courses simultaneously, was selected, and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim is arbitrary and discriminatory.

5. Per contra, Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent, submitted that the selection of Babu, who had pursued the P.G. and B.Ed. courses simultaneously, was subject to final approval by the competent authority. It was further submitted that, in any event, the petitioner had secured fewer marks than the last selected candidate under the SC (GT) category and therefore, his name was rightly excluded from the selection list. Hence, there was no arbitrariness in the selection process and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It was also submitted that all posts under the SC (GT) category had already been filled up.

6. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and the materials available on record have been carefully considered.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner had pursued the postgraduate and B.Ed.

courses simultaneously. Likewise, one Babu, who applied for the said post under the MBC category, had also pursued the courses simultaneously, but his selection was subject to approval by the competent authority. In any event, the provisional selection list reveals that one Vadivelu, who applied under the SC (GT) category, was the last selected candidate in the said category, having secured 101 marks out of 150. The petit