A proviso to a rule, when repugnant to the main provision, prevails as the later expression of legislative intent.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ WP No. 1693 of 2023 and WMP Nos.1799, 1800 and 1801 of 2023

1. S.Vasanthakumar 2. R.Pothigai Selvan ..Petitioners Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-09.

2. The Director of Medical Education (FAC), Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

3. The Member Secretary, Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB), 359, Anna Salai, DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.

..Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned Provisional selection List issued by 3rd respondent in PSL No.08/MRB/2022 dated 04.11.2022 and the subsequent impugned order issued by 2nd respondent in Ref.No.103328/ E5/ 1/ 2022 dated 30.12.2022 and to quash the same insofar as non inclusion of petitioners in the selection list and consequently direct respondents to include name of petitioners in the selection list for appointment to the post of Dark Room Assistant, based on the marks secured by petitioners in the selection, by reckoning CRA candidates with or without Science in Higher Secondary Course as single category in accordance with Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Medical Subordinate Service as amended.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.K.Tippu Sultan, Government Advocate for R1 and R2 Mr.M.Loganathan for R3

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging impugned Provisional selection list issued by third respondent in PSL No.08/MRB/2022 dated 04.11.2022 and the subsequent impugned order issued by second respondent in Ref.No.103328/ E5/ 1/ 2022 dated 30.12.2022 insofar as non inclusion of petitioners’ name in the selection list and consequently direct respondents to include name of petitioners in the selection list for appointment to the post of Dark Room Assistant, based on the marks secured by petitioners in the selection, by reckoning CRA candidates with or without Science in Higher Secondary Course as single category in accordance with Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Medical Subordinate Service as amended.

2. It is submitted by both learned counsel for petitioners as well learned learned counsel for respondents that the issue stands covered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.(MD) No.73 of 2024 dated 25.07.2025, wherein, it was held as under:

“10. The expression “with or without science”

was a conscious amendment made to the Special Rules. It is true that in the main provision, science subjects have been prescribed as essential part of the educational qualification. But as a one time measure, a departure has been made. We cannot lose sight of the fact that when this departure was made, the Covid pandemic was at its peak. That is why, the authorities felt it necessary to consider even those having CRA without science subject as eligible candidates. No doubt, this departure found in the proviso is at odds with the stipulation in the main provision. But it is a well settled principle of interpretation that here the proviso is directly repugnant to a section, the proviso shall stand and be held a repeal of the section as the proviso speaks the latter intention of the makers and that a proviso may sometimes contain a substantive provision [vide (2020) 8 SCC 129 (Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal)]. Of course, there are several principles based on which a proviso can be construed. It is upto the Court to choose the most relevant principle depending on the context. If we go by the interpretation set out vide order dated 18.08.2023 in W.P.No.768 of 2023, the very purpose of introducing the expressio