WP(MD)/18425/2026 of S.Dhamodharan Vs The Secretary on 13 October 2026

O R D E R

The brief facts that are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:

1.1. The respondent-TNPSC issued Notification No.9/2025 in Advertisement No.711, dated 21.05.2025, inviting applications for recruitment to various posts under the ‘Combined Technical Services Examination (Non-Interview Posts)’. Subsequently, Addendum Notification No.9A/2025, dated 11.06.2025, was issued, notifying an additional post of ‘Assistant Programmer’ and including the same in the recruitment process initiated on 21.05.2025. Though several posts have been notified under the said notifications, the case on hand pertains to the posts of ‘Computer Programmer’ and ‘Assistant Programmer’, bearing Code Nos.3605 and 3741, respectively only. The petitioner herein and respondents 4 and 5 participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the aforesaid notifications and were provisionally admitted for ‘on-screen certificate verification’, along with three other candidates. After the said certificate verification, respondents 4 and 5

herein, with Registration Nos.0901002091 and 2701002213, respectively, were selected for the posts of ‘Computer Programmer’ and ‘Assistant Programmer’, respectively. However, their selection was kept on hold on the ground that respondents 4 and 5 had not produced the orders of equivalence treating the qualifications possessed by them as equivalent to the qualifications notified under the notifications.

1.2. It was at that stage that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. In terms of the notifications in question, the qualification prescribed for the posts of ‘Computer Programmer’ and ‘Assistant Programmer’ is as follows: “A Master Degree in Computer Applications (MCA) or a Master Degree in Science (Information Technology/Computer Science) from any University or Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission for the purpose of its grants.”

1.3. The petitioner possesses the qualifications prescribed under the notifications. However, respondents 4 and 5 do not possess the qualifications notified under the notifications instead, they possess the qualifications which is extracted hereunder:-

“Degree of Bachelor of Engineer in Computer Science and Engineering and Degree of Master of Engineering in Computer Science and Engineering both candidates studied in Anna University, Chennai.” As the qualifications possessed by respondents 4 and 5 are not the same as notified under the notifications, the respondent-TNPSC claims that they were granted 15 days’ time to produce the orders relating to equivalence, and that the said period of 15 days is being extended from time to time.

2. In the light of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, in terms of paragraph 4.2.3.6 of the notification dated 21.05.2025, candidates claiming equivalence are required to upload a copy of the Government Order at the time of uploading the documents, failing which their candidature will be rejected after due process. Thus, he contends that the candidature of respondents 4 and 5 ought to have been rejected by the respondent-TNPSC for their failure to produce the orders of equivalence for the qualifications possessed by them. He further contends that the candidates next in line ought to have been selected and appointed to the posts of ‘Computer Programmer’ and ‘Assistant Programmer’.

3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent- TNPSC filed a counter affidavit, contending that TNPSC is under an obligation to follow due process before rejecting the candidature of respondents 4 and 5 and, therefore, they were granted 15 days time to produce the orders of equivalence, which period has been extended from time to time.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TNPSC also placed reliance on an order passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3410 of 2024, dated 29.04.2025, and on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of “Nadar Thanga Shubha Laxman A. v. State of Tamil Nadu”, reported in (2014) 3 CTC 433.

5. This Court has carefully considered the contentions raised on either side and perused the entire material on record.

6. It is not in dispute that respondents 4 and 5 do not possess the qualifications prescribed under the notifications in question. It is also not in dispute that respondents 4 and 5 have not uploaded the orders issued by the Government on equivalence along with the other documents. The relevant clause dealing with the issue of equivalence, namely, paragraph 4.2.3.6, reads as follows: “4.2.3.6. The candidates claiming equivalence of qualification should upload a copy of the Government order at the time of uploading of documents, failing which his/her candidature will be rejected after due process. The Government orders relating to equivalence of qualification are available on the website of the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education (www.tnsche.tn.gov.in). The Government orders regarding equivalence of qualification issued after the date of physical certificate verification will not be considered for this recruitment.” Even as on the date of filing of the counter affidavit, i.e., 17.07.2026, and as on the date of hearing of this writ petition, respondents 4 and 5 are not in a position to produce the orders of equivalence. Despite service of notice on respondents 4 and 5 in the present writ petition, for the reasons best known to them, they have not chosen to contest the matter or even to enter appearance.

7. The Paragraph No.4.2.3.6 dealing with equivalence of qualification is very emphatic and mandates that candidates claiming equivalence should upload the orders issued by the Government in that regard along with all the other documents. Admittedly, respondents 4 and 5 have not uploaded any such orders. Therefore, the respondent-TNPSC ought to have rejected the candidature of respondents 4 and 5 for their failure to upload the orders of equivalence, when admittedly, respondents 4 and 5 do not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under the notifications in question. However, the respondent-TNPSC, purportedly following the due process contemplated under paragraph 4.2.3.6, claims to have granted time to respondents 4 and 5 to produce the orders of equivalence, on the premise that “once the Government grants equivalence, the same would relate back to the date of acquisition of the degree”, by placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court.

8. This Court has gone through the decision of the learned Full Bench as well as the clause dealing with equivalence. In the considered view of this Court, the understanding of the respondent-TNPSC regarding the words “due process” contemplated under paragraph 4.2.3.6 is a total and thorough misconstruction, misunderstanding and misconception. When the notification mandates that the orders on equivalence are required to be uploaded along with all the other documents, the respondent-TNPSC ought to have strictly adhered to the said condition, instead of selecting candidates who do not satisfy the eligibility criteria and then keeping their selection on hold and granting them time to produce the orders of equivalence, especially when other candidates who fully satisfy the eligibility criteria, such as the petitioner herein, are available.

9. The learned Full Bench was dealing with totally a different fact situation, and there cannot be any controversy with regard to the ratio laid down by the learned Full Bench, holding that once equivalence is declared, the same relates back to the date of awarding of the degree. However, in the instant case, admittedly, no orders of equivalence have been produced by respondents 4 and 5 in terms of paragraph 4.2.3.6 or within the time granted by the respondent-TNPSC. There is absolutely no justification for the respondent-TNPSC to await indefinitely to accommodate candidates who admittedly do not satisfy the eligibility criteria and thereby deprive candidates who strictly satisfy the eligibility criteria and are available to be appointed to the posts in question.

10. The reliance placed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-TNPSC on the decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3410 of 2024 is also of no assistance to the respondent- TNPSC, as the said case arose out of a different fact situation. The learned Division Bench, having taken note of the fact that the candidates therein permitted to participate in the entire recruitment process, including the written examination, and had emerged as successful candidates, considered the case

where the candidate was able to produce the orders of equivalence. In the instant case, admittedly, no such orders of equivalence have been produced by respondents 4 and 5 till date.

11. In the light of the above, there is absolutely no justification for the respondent-TNPSC in selecting respondents 4 and 5 against the posts of ‘Computer Programmer’ and ‘Assistant Programmer’, bearing Post Code Nos.3605 and 3741, respectively, and further granting them time to produce the orders of equivalence indefinitely. Accordingly, the selection of respondents 4 and 5 against the two posts in question is hereby declared as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the respondent-TNPSC is directed to redraw the selection list by considering the candidates possessing the qualifications prescribed under the notifications and conclude the selection process in accordance with law in respect of the posts of ‘Computer Programmer’ and ‘Assistant Programmer’, bearing Post Code Nos.3605 and 3741, respectively, in terms of Notification dated 21.05.2025 and Addendum Notification dated 11.06.2025, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 13.10.2026 skr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No To

1. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

2. The Under Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

3. The Controller of Examination, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. skr Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P (MD) No.18425 of 2026 13.10.2026