PSTM reservation claim rejected as afterthought; not indicated in application despite English medium diploma study.

C O M M O N ORDER

The petitioners in both the writ petitions have participated in the recruitment process for filling up of the post of Field Surveyor, Draughtsman in Tamil Nadu Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service and Surveyor-cum-Assistant Draughtsman in Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Subordinate Service pursuant to the Notification No.18 of 2022 issued by the third respondent-TNPSC and became unsuccessful. However, the petitioners made an endeavour before this court to contend that they are eligible for being considered under PSTM 20% quota earmarked for PSTM category and their case should be considered by the third respondent Board under the said category and in case, if they are considered under the said category, the petitioners would come under the zone of consideration.

2. However, the learned counsel for the third respondent TNPSC contended that in order to claim the reservation under PSTM category, one has to study from the first standard till pass in the maximum qualifying examination in Tamil medium. But in the instant case, both the petitioners have studied Diploma in Civil Engineering in English medium as there was no Tamil medium of instruction in the said course.

3. This Court, on an earlier occasion, after having heard the matter at length, required the third respondent Board to produce the copy of the applications submitted by the petitioners and to ascertain as to whether the petitioners have in fact made any claim in their applications claiming benefit of PSTM reservation.

4. Today, when the matters are taken up for consideration, Mr.V.Panneerselvam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for TNPSC, brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have not even claimed for PSTM reservation while submitting their applications in response to the Notification in question. He also brought to the notice of this Court the extract of the applications submitted by the petitioners as available in the typed set annexed in the writ petitions.

5. This Court, having perused the same, is convinced that both the petitioners have in fact not claimed any reservation under PSTM category instead they have emphatically said ''No'' as against the specific column to say whether they are inclined to claim reservation against PSTM category or not. In such circumstances, the claim made by the petitioners in the present writ petitions is only an afterthought and therefore, the question of considering the petitioners under PSTM category does not arise.

6. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.