D.Nandagi v. The Chairman

ORDER Mr.C. Kathiravan, learned counsel takes notice for the 1st respondent and Mrs.S. Mythreye Chandru, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 2 and 3. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶2The Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned Provisional Selection List dated 22.01.2026 published by the 1st respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to select the petitioner in Serial Nos.144 or 145 for the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Botany), within a stipulated time frame.

¶3The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification issued by the 1st respondent dated 10.07.2025 inviting applications for the post of Post Graduate Assistant including the subject of Botany, the petitioner submitted her online application on 30.07.2025 and participated in the written examination. According to the petitioner, she secured 87 marks in the written examination. Thereafter, on 27.11.2025, the 1st respondent published the list of candidates called for Certificate Verification, wherein the petitioner was called under Serial No.148. However, when the Provisional Selection List dated 22.01.2026 was published, the petitioner's name did not find place in the said list, which constrained the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition challenging the said provisional list.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to BC Women category and secured 87 marks in the written examination. However, a candidate by name Jeevana S, who secured only 81 marks, has been accommodated in the selection list under BC category. It is the further argument that if the answer key for Question No.52 had been correctly evaluated, the petitioner would have secured an additional mark and would have been selected. Hence, the learned counsel prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature for appointment.

¶5Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioner participated under BC Women category and though she secured 87 marks, her candidature could not be accommodated in the said category. He further submitted that the candidate referred to by the petitioner, namely Jeevana, was selected under BC (DAP) category, which is meant for Differently Abled Persons. The said vacancy was specifically earmarked for the physically challenged category and the said candidate was accommodated in that communal turn. Since the petitioner does not belong to the Differently Abled category and participated only under BC Women category, she cannot claim appointment against the BC (DAP) vacancy. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for and prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.

¶6Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶7It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated under the BC Women category. The vacancy referred to by the petitioner pertains to BC (DAP) category, which is a special reservation meant for Differently Abled Persons. The candidate selected in Serial No.138 was accommodated under the said category. Since the petitioner does not belong to the Differently Abled category, she cannot seek consideration against the said vacancy. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that she secured higher marks than the said candidate cannot be accepted in view of the specific communal and special category reservation applicable to the recruitment process.

¶8In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned Provisional Selection List dated 22.01.2026 warranting interference. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

25.02.2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vsi2 To :

¶1The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai College Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶2The Secretary School Education Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

¶3The Director Department of Government Examination College Road Chennai 600 006. W.P.oNo.6682oofo2026 M.oDHANDAPANI,oJ.o vsi2 W.P.oNo.6682oofo2026 and W.M.P.oNo.7263oofo2026

25.02.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.02.2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and W.M.P. No.7263 of 2026 D.Nandagi … Petitioner Vs 1. The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai College Road, Chennai 600 006. 2. The Secretary School Education Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. 3. The Director Department of Government Examination College Road Chennai 600 006. … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned provisional selection list published on 22/1/2026 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to select the petitioner in S.Nos.144 or 145 for which no such original candidate under such special category is not available as stated in the Provisional Selection List, within the time frame fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arokia Mani Raj For Respondents : Mr.C.Kathiravan for R.1 Mrs.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader for R.R.2 and 3