Chennai: A larger bench will soon decide on three core issues, which since 1978 saw no certainty, relating to availability of 20 per cent reservation earmarked for Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) in government jobs in respect of law graduates.
Finding ambiguity in the applicability of 20 per cent PSTM quota in respect of law graduates from state law universities and there is no authoritative judgment on this aspect, a division bench comprising Justices V. Bharathidasan and V. Parthiban directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for referring it to a larger bench for authoritative pronouncement on three issues.
The three issues are : 1) Whether studying the course in Tamil and having written University Examination in Tamil language will qualify the candidate for claiming reservation against PSTM? 2) In the absence of Tamil Medium of Instruction in the colleges, whether the candidates who studied the courses in Tamil, or have written examinations in Tamil can be placed on par with PSTM candidates for the purpose of claiming reservation earmarked for PSTM? And 3) Whether the Tamil Medium of Instruction is in vogue and available in Law Colleges run by the State Universities and if available, from what period the courses have been commenced in Tamil Medium and whether the same has been continuing uninterruptedly up to which period? If Tamil Medium of Instruction is available, factually which are the Law Colleges run by the State Universities, conducting Law Course in Tamil as Medium of Instructions?.
Originally, Boominathan, Senthil Kumar and R. Devaraj applied to the post of civil judges pursuant to the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and they have uniformly indicated that they studied their basic courses in Tamil Medium. Though they were successful in all the three rounds of selection, during certificate verification, they were informed that their candidature could not be considered against the vacancies earmarked for PSTM since no certificates were produced by them to that effect. Aggrieved they filed the present petitions. During the course of hearing, since there were more vacancies unfilled, they requested the court to consider them against respective communal quota reserved for appointment on the ground that they made the mistake inadvertently.
Allowing the petitions, the bench directed the Commission to consider their claim in the respective communal quota sans PSTM and if they were otherwise fit for selection and appointment, their claims may be considered for issuance of appointment orders along with already selected 209 candidates.
The bench said as regards the issue relating to the availability of Tamil Medium courses in the State Law Colleges was concerned, there appears to be a kind of uncertainty as there has been no concrete materials made available to the courts for coming to a conclusion one way or the other. The courts both single judges and division benches which dealt with the issue have rendered their decisions either on the basis of inadequate information made available or on the basis of certain presumptions. After adverting to the various decisions by this bench, it was found that none of the decisions either by division bench or by the single judge was an authoritative pronouncement in regard to availability of Tamil Medium of courses in Law colleges run by the State, the bench added.
The bench said the officials, who were in administration of State Law Colleges, were unable to bring forth any clinching material to apprise the court as to what was actual reality in respect of state law colleges including Madurai law colleges in regard to conduct of Tamil Medium courses. On the whole, it appears that the question of whether Tamil Medium of Instruction was available in law colleges in the under the state universities remain unanswered as on date, nonetheless, the Courts were compelled to render decisions on the basis of expediency with the available materials. “In the above circumstances, this Bench is of the view that the area of uncertainty in regard to the subject matter of discussion is to be removed once and for all for a clear categorical pronouncement on the issue”, the bench added and referred the three issues to a larger bench.
