IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
S. Arun – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 1863, 1868 of 2026, W.M.P. Nos. 1906, 1957, 1960, 1961 of 2026
Decided On : 28-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to non-inclusion in selection list. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal arguments regarding qualification equivalence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. respondents defend non-inclusion based on qualifications. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's analysis of equivalence based on syllabus and qualifications. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 5. court orders inclusion of petitioners in selection list. (Para 38) |
ORDER :
1. Challenge through these writ petitions is made to the non-inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the provisional list for selection to the post of Health Inspector Grade-II on the ground that the diploma qualification of the petitioners is not equivalent to the qualification, which was advertised by the 3rd respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the 3rd respondent for selection to the post of Health Inspector Grade-II in the Tamil Nadu Public Health Subordinate Service vide notification dated 27.10.2025 the petitioners submitted their candidature and they were shortlisted for certificate verification based on the marks secured by them in the written examination. However, to their shock and surprise, the names of the petitioners were not included in the provisional selection list published by the 3rd respondent on 13.01.2026, whereas the candidates, who secured lesser marks than the petitioners have been than the petitioners have been included in the provisional list. Aggrieved by the non-inclusion of their names in the provisional selection list, the present petitions have been filed by the petitioners.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned provisional selection issued by the 3rd respondent dated 13.1.2026 is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and against law and the same is liable to be quashed.
4. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that one of the qualification criteria fixed in the advertisement is Health Inspector Course Certificate offered by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioners have qualified themselves with a one year PG Diploma in Sanitary Inspector course offered by the Madurai Kamaraj University, which is an eligible qualification for the said post as notified in G.O. Ms. No.45 dated 19.4.2022, which declares the equivalence of P.G. Diploma in Environmental Sanitation Science (for short PG- ESS’) offered by Madurai Kamaraj University as equivalent to Sanity Inspector Certificate Course conducted by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
5. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the aforesaid course offered by the University, which was previously offered for one year, was renamed as PG Diploma in Sanitary Inspectors Course (for short ‘PG-SI’) for a period of one year from the academic year 2018-2019. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that there is no change in syllabus, course content, curriculum, etc., and the change in nomenclature was made and approved only to avoid confusion with regard to eligibility of the said PG diploma course.
6. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that when the PG-ESS has been declared as equivalent to the Sanitary Inspector course offered by the Government of Tamil Nadu, as notified in G.O. Ms. No.45 dated 19.4.2022, the change in nomenclature, without there being any change in the syllabus will not take away the eligibility of the candidates, who have completed PG-SI course from the year 2018-2019. It is therefore the submission of the learned senior counsel that the candidates, who have secured the very same qualification by studying the very same syllabus, cannot be deprived of selection merely based on the change of name of the course, when the syllabus remains intact with no change in the curriculum or its contents.
7. In this backdrop, learned senior counsel, pointing out to G.O. Ms.No.443 date
The equivalence of educational qualifications for employment must be assessed based on syllabus similarity rather than course nomenclature changes.
The court affirmed that the one-year Sanitary Inspector diploma from Pondicherry University qualifies under government orders, directing inclusion of qualified candidates in the selection process des....
Eligibility criteria for public employment must remain unchanged once selection has commenced, protecting candidates' legitimate expectations.
Eligibility criteria for public posts must have rational nexus with duties; arbitrary prescription without justification liable to challenge, relief moulded for fairness.
Post of Assistant Manager and Assistant Accountant - Power of Judicial Review on issue of equivalence of Degree - Court directs Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.