BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 30.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and WMP(MD)No.2069 of 2026 D.Esakkimuthu ... Petitioner Vs

1.State of Tamilnadu, Represented by its Home Secretary to the Government, Fort St.George, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

3.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned disqualification order passed by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner under the Backward Classes (BC) Category for the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment 2026 to the post of Fireman, Jail Warder and Grade II Police Constable and grant permission to the petitioner to participate PET exam under Backward Classes (BC) Category scheduled on

22.01.2026 and 23.01.2026.

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Velpradeep For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

The petitioner is possessing 10^th standard qualification and he has applied for the post of Jail Warder and Grade II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, as per the Notification, dated 21.08.2025. The petitioner belongs to Backward community and he is having the community certificate issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Tenkasi. He has applied to the said post through a computer centre, wherein while submitting the application they have mentioned his community as 'OC' instead of 'BC'. However, this mistake has been pointed out by the petitioner subsequently and it has been rectified by submitting another application on the same day. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the above mistake has been rectified subsequently, this petitioner has been considered under the open category (OC) and he has not been selected for physical endurance test, which is being conducted from 22.01.2026. According to this petitioner, he has secured 59 marks in the written examination and the cut off mark for BC category is 55. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for appropriate orders to the respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature under BC category.

2.The learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents submits that the petitioner has, in fact, in the application submitted by him on 12.09.2025 opted his community as BC and uploaded his BC community certificate. Subsequently he has edited his application on 25.09.2025 and selected his community as OC. Therefore, his candidature was considered under OC category. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit reads as follows:

“6.It is submitted that the petitioner in his affidavit had stated that he inadvertently applied under OC community and that after being aware of the same he immediately rectified the mistake and updated his community as BC. He had claimed that the Board, without considering the same, had treated him under OC and disqualified him. The claim of the petitioner is false and denied. The facts pertaining to the petitioner herein are given in the following paragraphs for perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

7.It is submitted that as per the records of TNUSRB, the application status of the petitioner is OC. On further perusal and information obtained from the vendor revealed that the petitioner had submitted his online application on 12.09.2025, when the online application portal was live from 22.08.2025 to 21.09.2025. In the said application he applied under BC by selecting 'yes' against the column "do you possess the community certificate issu