Madras High Court: In a batch of writ petitions filed toquash the notification dated 01-12-2021 and consequent notification issued on 30-01-2024 by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (‘TNPSC’) stating that the candidates for Group IV Government Jobs need to appear for both Part A and B of the examination paper which would be of 150 marks each, and mandates that Part B of the paper will only be taken up for evaluation if the candidate qualifies Part A of the paper with 40% marks, which is Tamil proficiency paper, to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and opposite to Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 (‘Act’), G.R. Swaminathan*, J. has upheld the impugned order mandating 40% marks in Tamil paper and said that the order was in consonance with Section 21A of the Act and in matters concerning recruitment, the employer can prescribe the qualifications and the Court will not interfere in such policy matters unless it is illegal or without jurisdiction. The petitioners complained that if 150 marks of Part A is taken into consideration then that would put them at disadvantage as they are not proficient in Tamil as others, and this would lead to 100% reservation for Tamil Medium candidates whereas only 20% horizontal reservation is allowed for the candidates studied in Tamil Medium.
The Court noted that the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 was enacted to regulate the service conditions of the Tamil Nadu Government servants. Section 21 of the Act states that government servants should have adequate knowledge of Tamil and Section 21A mandates the requirement of 40% marks in the Tamil language paper conducted for direct recruitment by the authority.
The Court said that the impugned Government Order is in consonance with the aforesaid statutory provision and the impugned recruitment notification is in consonance with both.The Court said that it has not been established that the impugned government order is ultra vires the constitution and a subordinate legislation can only be assailed when it is ultra vires or contrary to the constitution. The Court also said that the employer has the power to prescribe the qualifications and in the present case persons serving Group IV posts will be required to engage in direct communication with the public and hence need to be fluent in Tamil. The Court provided for the exemption of differently abled persons who have studied English in Board/University can opt for General English (SSLC Standard) instead of the Tamil Eligibility-cum-Scoring Test which will include no translation.
The Bench held that the order was in consonance with Section 21A of the Act and in matters concerning the recruitment the employer can prescribe the qualifications and the Court will not interfere in such policy matters unless it is illegal or without jurisdiction.
[S. Nitesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 1632, Order dated 30-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for C. Uma
Counsel for Respondent: Advocate General P.S.Raman , Government Advocate D.Ravichander
Buy Constitution of India HERE
