N.Siranjeevi Kumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 30/06/2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and WMP(MD)Nos.22508, 28716/2025 & 7177/26 in WP(MD)No.29039/25 and WMP(MD)No.12968 in WP(MD)No.17516 of 2026 In WP(MD)No.29039 of 2025:

1. N.Siranjeevi Kumar

2. L.Bala Shankar ... Petitioners Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat,Chennai 600 009.

2. The Registrar, Anna University, Guindy,Chennai.

3. The Teachers Recruitment Board, O/o the Teachers Recruitment Board, 3rd and 4th Floors, Puratchi Thalaivar Dr MGR Centenary Building, Perasiriyar Anbalagan Kalvi Valaagam, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

4.A.Mohanbabu ... Respondents (Fourth respondent is impleaded vide order dated 30.06.2026 in WMP (MD) No.6851 of 2026 in WP(MD)No.29039 of 2025 by MSKJ) 1/12

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records pertaining to the impugned selection list of the second respondent dated 23.05.2025 and subsequently directing the respondents to publish the fresh selection list for the next stage of selection process.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj For R1 : Mrs.K.Porkodi Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.EVN.Siva For R3 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan For R4 : Mr.B.Anandan In WP(MD)No.17516 of 2026:

A.Mohanbabu ... Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.

2. The Registrar, Anna Univeristy, Guindy, Chennai - 600025.

3. The Teachers Recruitment Board, 3rd and 4th Floors, Puratchi Thalaivar Dr.MGR Centenary Building, Perasiriyar Anbalagban Kalvi Valaagam, College Road,Chennai - 600006. ... Respondents 2/12

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent University to treat the waitlisted (1) status as valid and not to lapse the posts of Assistant Professor in Electronics and Communication Engineering and further direct the second Respondent to keep those said post vacant and alive strictly in conformity with interim order dated 12.11.2025, W.P(MD) No. 29039 of 2025 and WMP(MD) No. 22512 of 2025 within the period that may stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Anandan For R1 : Mrs.K.Porkodi Government Pleader For R2 : Ms.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R3 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER WP(MD)No.29049 of 2025 has been filed challenging the selection list dated 23.05.2025 published by the third respondent for the post of the Assistant Professor in Electronics and Communication Engineering and the Assistant professor in Electrical and Electronics Engineering.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, the learned 3/12

counsel appearing for the second respondent, the learned counsel for the third respondent and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

3. In response to the Notification No.001/RC/ UCE & RC/2023 dated 24.11.2023 issued by the second respondent, the petitioners submitted their respective applications for the post of the Assistant Professor in Electronics and Communication Engineering and the Assistant professor in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and participated in the recruitment process conducted by the third respondent. In the said recruitment process, the petitioners could not come up for consideration for the stage of interview and therefore the petitioners have challenged the impugned list of candidates found eligible for interview.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in terms of paragraph 20 of the notification dated 24.11.2023, the second respondent is under obligation to call the candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:5.

5. In the instant case, the total number of posts that were notified 4/12

is 232 in all, but the number of candidates, who are called for interview, are only 648 thereby the second respondent violated the terms mentioned in paragraph No.20 of the Notification in question. He further contended that the candidates were called for interview in category wise instead of calling the candidates from the list of 1160 candidates eligible for interview. Thereby, the petitioners herein are excluded from being considered for further consideration by allowing them to participate in the interview process.

6. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the second respondent filed a counter affidavit explaining the process of recruitment and the process of interview that were conducted.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that there was repetition of the candidates depending upon their category and therefore only 648 candidates could be called for interview as against 1160. But if the repetitions are also counted, the total number of candidates that were called for interview would be 1160 fulfilling the requirement of ratio of 1:5 as mandated in paragraph No. 20 5/12

of the Notification. The relevant paragraph of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent reads as under:

'20. The candidates will be shortlisted for interview in the ratio of 1:5 based on the marks secured in the written test and number of vacancy positions. For example, if there is only one vacancy, 5 candidates will be shortlisted and in case of 'n' vacancies, '5 X n' candidates will be shortlisted, In case of a tie in mark of the last candidate (that is the '5n'th candidate), all candidates secured the same mark will be shortlisted'.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2015 (3) LW 383 in the case of B.Yamunadevi and others vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to say that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rule of reservation is being applied at the stage of interview cannot be accepted.

9. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the entire materials on record.

6/12

10. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents are applying the rule of reservation at the time of conducting interview instead of applying the same at the time of appointment is concerned, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention. Admittedly, the total number of posts that are notified under the Notification are earmarked in favour of various categories such as BC, SC, ST, General Turn. While calling for interview in the ratio 1:5, only the candidates belonging to the respective categories can be called for interview, but, not the candidates belonging to different category. Therefore, merely because the candidates belonging to a particular category are called for interview, the same cannot be said to be applying the roster at the time of interview.

It is only on selecting the eligible candidates against a particular post earmarked for a particular category, the said candidate can be accommodated while applying roster at the time of finalising the selected list. Therefore, the said contention is liable to be rejected at the threshold.

11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the very same issue has fallen for consideration before this 7/12

Court in the case of B.Yamunadevi and others vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission reported in 2015 (3) LW 383, wherein, this Court held as follows:

''24. In any case, the Public Service Commission has not applied either the roster or the rule of reservation at the stage of selection. They have called the candidates in the ratio of 1:2 from all categories. This is not to be taken as the application of the rule of reservation at the stage of viva-voce.

25. As a matter of fact, the Public Service Commission could have done two things. The first is that they could have arranged all the 810 candidates who had passed the written examination in the order of merit and invited only the first 324 candidates for viva-voce. If they had done so, some of the reserved categories would have been left out of the race. Then, the purpose behind the rule of reservation would have got defeated and Rules 21(b) and 22 of the General Rules would have been rendered a dead letter. The second alternative for the Public Service Commission was to call twice number of candidate in each category. This would ensure that the rule of reservation is not defeated. The Public Service Commission has chosen to follow the second alternative. Therefore, the contention that the Public Service Commission had applied the rule of 8/12

reservation even before interview, is not well founded. Hence, it is rejected''.

12. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to further dwell into the matter and insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the second respondent ought to have called in all 1160 candidates for interview instead of 648 candidates is concerned, this Court does not find any merit in the said contention as well for the following reason:

(i) The candidate belonging to a reserved category is entitled to be considered as against the general category vacancies as well. If that is taken into consideration, a candidate belonging to a particular category, for instance, BC category became eligible on his/her own merit for consideration of his/her case for General Turn category, such a candidate should have to be called for interview as against General Turn category posts as well as the posts earmarked to the category to which that candidate belongs to. If that is not done, that would amount to giving a go-by to the rule of reservation. If a candidate who comes up for consideration on merit is called for interview against General Turn category post and is denied consideration under BC category, the same would amount to violation of the mandate under Articles 15 and 16 the Constitution of India. 9/12

Such a farfetched interpretation of paragraph 20 of the Notification in question cannot be allowed.

At the end, this Court does not see any violation of the mandate provided under paragraph 20 of the Notification dated 24.11.2023.

13. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition in WP(MD)No.29039 of 2025 is dismissed.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the order passed in WP(MD)No.29039 of 2025, adjudication of WP(MD)No.17516 of 2026 on merits is not required.

15. In the light of the above submission, WP(MD)No.17516 of 2026 is accordingly closed.

16. As two posts have not been filled because of the interim order passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.29039 of 2025 dated 12.11.2025, the 10/12

second respondent shall take expeditious steps for filling up of those two posts. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions in both writ petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 30.06.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No CM To, The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.

11/12

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J CM and WMP(MD)Nos.22508, 28716/2025 & 7177/26 in WP(MD)No.29039/25 and WMP(MD)No.12968 in WP(MD)No.17516 of 2026 Date : 30/06/2026 12/12