SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 27953

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
Ex-Nb/Sub KS Justine – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.5115 of 2026 &

W.M.P(MD)Nos.4305 & 4306 of 2026 Ex-Nb/Sub KS Justine, S/o.Selvaraj, 3/4, North Street, Ariyanallur, Munnilaikottai, Dindigul - 624 303. ...Petitioner vs.

1.The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director of Medical Education and Research, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.

3.The Member Secretary, Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB), 7th Floor, DMS Building, 359, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in PSL.No.18/MRB/2025 dated 24.12.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent, quash the same as illegal insofar as it excludes the petitioner and diverts ex-servicemen reserved vacancies and consequently, direct the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the selection list under ex-servicemen category and issue appointment / posting orders forthwith with all attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rajasekar For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino, Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Ms.Yasmin Begum for R3

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order of the third respondent in PSL.No. 18/MRB/2025, dated 24.12.2025 and to direct the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the selection list under ex-servicemen category and issue appointment / posting orders forthwith with all attendant benefits.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that vide the impugned order, a provisional selection list was published for the post of Dental Hygienist pursuant to the Notification No.15/MRB/2025, dated 13.10.2025, selecting 37 candidates. The petitioner herein, who participated in the recruitment process under ex-servicemen category has not been selected inspite of being called for Certificate Verification. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition contending that in the communication dated 18.11.2025, it was mentioned that the candidates are called for verification of Certificates / Documents based on the marks secured by them and particulars furnished in their online application, such as age, educational qualification, community, etc. and other relevant rules in vogue. But the third respondent after having verified the Certificates produced by the petitioner, failed to select him though there are no other eligible candidates competing for the post earmarked for ex-servicemen category except the petitioner herein.

3. This matter earlier came up for consideration before this Court on

25.02.2026 and learned Special Government Pleader and learned standing counsel took notice for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms.Yasmin Begum, learned standing counsel for the third respondent brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner herein is not satisfying the qualification criteria under the Notification dated 13.10.2025, especially the requirement of having registered with the Tamil Nadu Dental Council as on the date of Notification i.e., 13.10.2025. She has also drawn the attention of this Court to the registration Certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Dental Council in favour of the petitioner.

5. A perusal of the same discloses that the petitioner got himself registered with the Tamil Nadu Dental Council only on 27.10.2025 i.e., after the date of Notification dated 13.10.2025. These factual aspects have not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner admits the fact situation. Once it is admitted that the petitioner is not satisfying the qualification criteria as prescribed under Paragraph 6(B) of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top