High Court · 2025

W.P.No.6709 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.04.2025CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N. MALAWrit Petition No.6709 of 2021and W.M.P.Nos.7264 and 7266 of 2021B. Vadivazhakan... PetitionerVs.1. The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Director, Department of Archaeology, Tamil Valarchi Valagam, Tamizh Salai, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.3. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.4. A. Vasantha Kumar5. M. Suresh6. R. Subhashini ... RespondentsPage 1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the selection list published by the third respondent in their Web Site on 29.12.2020 based on the Advertisement No.563 and Notification No.33 dated 28.11.2019 for appointment to the post of Archaeological Officer in the Department of Archaeology and quash the same and declare the appointment orders issued to the respondents 4 to 6 in the post of Archaeological Officers as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to select the petitioner as Archaeological Officer in anyone of the 3 Posts under MBC quota in which the respondents 4 to 6 have been illegally selected and given appointment. For Petitioner: Mr.V. Ajoy KhoseFor Respondent : Mr.L.S.M. Hasan FazilNos.1 and 2 Additional Government PleaderFor Respondent : Mr. Karthick Rajan No.3 Standing CounselFor Respondent : Mr. C.K. Chandrasekhar Nos.4 to 6 - - - - -ORDERThe present Writ Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the selection list published by the third respondent in their Web Site Page 2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021on 29.12.2020, based on the Advertisement No.563 and Notification No.33 dated 28.11.2019, for appointment to the post of Archaeological Officer, in the Department of Archaeology, to quash the same, declare the appointment orders issued to the respondents 4 to 6 in the post of Archaeological Officers as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to select the petitioner as Archaeological Officer in anyone of the 3 Posts under MBC quota, in which the respondents 4 to 6, have been illegally selected and given appointment. 2. The petitioner submits that he belongs to Most Backward Class community. The petitioner is a graduate in B.A. Historical Studies and a Post Graduate in M.A. Ancient History and Archaeology, having studied under 10 + 2 + 3 + 2 pattern. Apart from this, he completed a Diploma in Museology and Conservation, in Tamil Nadu Open University. 3. While so, the third respondent issued Notification No.33, dated 28.11.2019, calling for applications through online mode for appointment to the post of Archaeological Officer. The petitioner applied for the said post and secured 240.50 marks and his overall ranking number was 40 and his community ranking number was 10. Thereafter, Page 3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021the petitioner was called for certificate verification and counselling on 29.12.2020, but, in the final list, the petitioner's name was not found.4. According to the petitioner, the respondents 4 to 6 were ineligible and unqualified for appointment as they did not study Tamil language in their UG Course of Bachelor of Fine Arts, in Government College of Architecture and Sculptures.5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed their counter stating that the respondents 4 to 6 were selected as per the merit list and in strict-compliance of the rules. According to the respondents, the petitioner's allegations against the respondents 4 to 6 were vague and devoid of merits and therefore, the Writ Petition was liable to be rejected. 6. The third respondent filed a counter denying the petitioner's contentions that the private respondents 4 to 6 did not pass Tamil as one of the subjects in the Degree level and therefore, they were ineligible for selection. The third respondent, relying on the reply of the University of Madras in its RTI reply dated 07.01.2021, submitted that the contention of the petitioner was untenable inasmuch as the respondents 4 to 6 Page 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021passed a subject Art through Tamil Literature, which was equivalent to Tamil language. The 3rd respondent, therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition had no merits and deserved to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the very same selection was challenged by another candidate before this Court in W.P.No.3203 of 2021 and this Court, by its order dated 13.10.2022, upheld the selection and dismissed the Writ Petition. The learned counsel further submitted that the issue in this Writ Petition was fully covered by the above-said judgment and therefore, this Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the reply given to the RTI application filed by him under Right to Information Act, submitted that the respondents 4 to 6 did not satisfy Condition No.6B(ii) of the Notification relating to the Educational Qualification and therefore, the judgment relied on by the respondents did not apply to the present case. The learned counsel submitted that the selection of the private respondents 4 to 6 was illegal and deserved to be set aside. Page 5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 20219. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.10. It is to be seen if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment in W.P.No.3203 of 2021 dated 13.10.2022 is inapplicable to case, in view of the RTI reply given to the petitioner by the University of Madras, is tenable. The RTI reply is extracted and it reads as follows:-nfs;tp vz;.1brd;idg; gy;fiyf;fHfj;jpy; B.A. B.Com., B.Sc., Mfpa ,s';fiy gl;lg;gog;g[fspy; 2 tUl';fSf;F 4 gUt njh;t[fSf;F bkhHpg;ghlkhf gapw;Wtpf;fg;gLk; jkpH; 2004 Kjy; 2013 tiuapyhd fhyj;jpy; brd;idg; gy;fiyf;fHfj;jpd; fPH; kfhgypg[uj;jpy; bray;gl;L te;j Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mahabalipuram fy;Y}hpapYk; gapw;Wtpf;fg;gl;lbjdpy; mg;ghl tptu';fis tH';ft[k;.gjpy; vz;.1gapw;Wtpf;fg;gltpy;iy11. To the query raised by the third respondent to the Madras University, the reply given was as follows:-Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021nfs;tp vz;.1brd;idg; gy;fiyf;fHfj;jpw;F fPH; ,a';fp te;j Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mahabalipuram fy;Y}hpapy; tH';fg;gl;l BFA- Traditional Architecture. BFA - Traditional Drawing and Painting, B.Tech - Traditional Architecture Mfpa gog;g[fSf;F 2004 Kjy; 2010 tiuapyhd ghlj;jpl;lj;jpd; (Syllabus) efiy tH';FkhW nfhUfpnwd;.gjpy; vz;.196 gf;f';fisf; bfhz;l \d;W ghlg;gphpt[fspy; ghlj;jpl;lj;jpd; (Syllabus) efiy bgWtjwf;F kDjhuh; xU gf;fj;jpw;F +.2 tPjk; +.192-I/ gjpthsh;/ brd;idg; gy;fiyf;fHfk; vd;w bgahpy; vLf;fg;gl;l tiunthiy \ykhf brYj;jpdhy; tH';fg;gLk;.nfs;tp vz;.2brd;idg; gy;fiyf;fHfj;jpw;F fPH; ,a';fp te;j Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mahabalipuram fy;Y}hpapy; tH';fg;gl;l BFA- Traditional Architecture. BFA - Traditional Drawing and Painting, B.Tech - Traditional Architecture Mfpa gog;g[fSf;F 2004 Kjy; 2010 tiuapy; jkpiH xU ghlkhf gapw;Wtpj;jjw;fhd jftiy tH';FkhW nfhUfpnwd;.gjpy; vz;.22004 Kjy; 2010 tiuapy; brd;idg; gy;fiyf; fHfj;jpy; elj;jg;gl;l BFC- Traditional Architecture, BFA- Traditional Drawing and Painting, B.Tech - Traditional Architecture Mfpa ghlj;jpl;lj;jpy; jkpH; rhh;e;j xU jhs; gapw;Wtpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.12. From a reading of the query raised by the petitioner and the one raised by the third respondent and the reply given, it is seen that the query that was raised by the petitioner was very vague and therefore, the answer given was also not specific and pin-pointed. But, the query raised by the third respondent was very apt and it directly related to the Page 7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021Bachelor's Degree obtained by the respondents 4 to 6. The specific reply given by the Madras University was that Art through Tamil Literature was one of the Tamil subjects in Degree level. Hence, I find no merit in the petitioner's contention.13. More over, this Court, in W.P.No.3203 of 2021 on a comparative analysis of the specialized subjects in Tamil Literature undergone by the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 to 6 held that the respondents 4 to 6 studied specialized subjects in Tamil Literature. Paragraph Nos. 14 to 17 of the said judgment are relevant and read as follows:- 14. Admittedly, the respective private respondents have studied their graduation with the medium of instruction as Tamil. They have also studied specialized subjects in Tamil Literature which are as follows:-Sl.No.Syllabus1998 to 2013 (Non Semester Pattern)2014 onwards (Semester Pattern)1Nedunelvaadai Lines 72 - 130Art Through Tamil Literature (TZD)2MaduraikanchiLines 351-3703PattinapalaiLines 142 - 157Tamil I BTA/BTS/BTP 1:1:01Page 8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021Sl.No.Syllabus1998 to 2013 (Non Semester Pattern)2014 onwards (Semester Pattern)4Pari PaadalVerses on Sevvel & Thirumaal5SilappathigaramKunrak Kurvak,Vettava Vari, Aranketruk Khaadai6Naalayira Divya PrabandamPeriyazhvar PasurangalTamil II BTA/BTS/BTP 2:1:087Thevaarathil Appar PasurangalDescriptions of different temples and special features of Murthys8Periya PuranamSivamoorthangal9KalingathuparaniNatarajar, Bichadanar, Arthanaareswara, Somaskandhar, Kalasambara, Dakshinamoorthi, Sandikeswarar, Possalar Naayanar Verses Nos.1 - 11Tamil III BTA/BTS/BTP 3:1:1510Kambha RamayanamVerse No.1 Negerappadalam 13, 19, 23 - 3011SeevagasindhamaniKaanthruvaththal ayar Illambhagam Verse 590-29512ThanigaipuranamA scene of Agathiyar's getting Arul, 16 Dhiyaana slokaas of Lord SubramaniaTamil IV BTA/BTS/BTP 4:1:22 15. The Educational qualification requirement as per the notification dated 28.11.2019 is extracted hereunder:i) Must possess M.A.Degree in Ancient History and Archaeology or in Archaeology (OR)Must possess M.A.Degree in History or Indian History or in Tamil awarded by any of the University recognized by the University Grants Commission and A 'Post Graduate Diploma in Epigraphy and Archaeology' awarded by the institute of Epigraphy, Department of Archaeology, Government of Page 9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021Tamil Nadu or Post Graduate Diploma in Archaeology awarded by the Archaeological Survey of India. ii) Must have passed Tamil as one of the subjects in Degree level. 16. As seen from the educational qualification requirement, a candidate must have passed Tamil as one of the subjects in Degree level. It does not stipulate that Tamil language must have been a subject in the Degree level. The respective private respondents have studied their Degree level with medium of instruction as Tamil. They have also studied specialized subjects in Tamil Literature as observed earlier. Therefore, it cannot be said that the private respondents have not passed Tamil as one of the subjects in Degree level. The question of production of equivalence certificate by the private respondents will also not arise as their medium of instruction in their graduate study was only Tamil and that too when they have studied specialized subjects in Tamil literature only in Tamil.17. The private respondents having studied the entire Degree level with medium of instruction as Tamil and having studied specialized subjects in Tamil Literature, there was no necessity for the first respondent Commission to ask the respective private respondents for an equivalence certificate. The respective private respondents have also secured higher marks than the petitioner, which is also not in dispute. Page 10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 202114. As this Court already upheld the selection of the private respondents 4 to 6 in the said Writ Petition after detailed discussion of the entire facts, I find no reason to deviate from the said judgment. As the aforementioned judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case, I find no merit in the Writ Petition. 15. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 17.04.2025ASIPage 11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021N. MALA, J.ASITo1. The Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Director, Department of Archaeology, Tamil Valarchi Valagam, Tamizh Salai, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.3. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.Writ Petition No.6709 of 2021and W.M.P.Nos.7264 and 7266 of 202117.04.2025Page 12 of 12

W.P.No.6709 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.04.2025CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N. MALAWrit Petition No.6709 of 2021and W.M.P.Nos.7264 and 7266 of 2021B. Vadivazhakan... PetitionerVs.1. The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Director, Department of Archaeology, Tamil Valarchi Valagam, Tamizh Salai, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.3. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.4. A. Vasantha Kumar5. M. Suresh6. R. Subhashini ... RespondentsPage 1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the selection list published by the third respondent in their Web Site on 29.12.2020 based on the Advertisement No.563 and Notification No.33 dated 28.11.2019 for appointment to the post of Archaeological Officer in the Department of Archaeology and quash the same and declare the appointment orders issued to the respondents 4 to 6 in the post of Archaeological Officers as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to select the petitioner as Archaeological Officer in anyone of the 3 Posts under MBC quota in which the respondents 4 to 6 have been illegally selected and given appointment. For Petitioner: Mr.V. Ajoy KhoseFor Respondent : Mr.L.S.M. Hasan FazilNos.1 and 2 Additional Government PleaderFor Respondent : Mr. Karthick Rajan No.3 Standing CounselFor Respondent : Mr. C.K. Chandrasekhar Nos.4 to 6 - - - - -ORDERThe present Writ Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the selection list published by the third respondent in their Web Site Page 2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021on 29.12.2020, based on the Advertisement No.563 and Notification No.33 dated 28.11.2019, for appointment to the post of Archaeological Officer, in the Department of Archaeology, to quash the same, declare the appointment orders issued to the respondents 4 to 6 in the post of Archaeological Officers as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to select the petitioner as Archaeological Officer in anyone of the 3 Posts under MBC quota, in which the respondents 4 to 6, have been illegally selected and given appointment. 2. The petitioner submits that he belongs to Most Backward Class community. The petitioner is a graduate in B.A. Historical Studies and a Post Graduate in M.A. Ancient History and Archaeology, having studied under 10 + 2 + 3 + 2 pattern. Apart from this, he completed a Diploma in Museology and Conservation, in Tamil Nadu Open University. 3. While so, the third respondent issued Notification No.33, dated 28.11.2019, calling for applications through online mode for appointment to the post of Archaeological Officer. The petitioner applied for the said post and secured 240.50 marks and his overall ranking number was 40 and his community ranking number was 10. Thereafter, Page 3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021the petitioner was called for certificate verification and counselling on 29.12.2020, but, in the final list, the petitioner's name was not found.4. According to the petitioner, the respondents 4 to 6 were ineligible and unqualified for appointment as they did not study Tamil language in their UG Course of Bachelor of Fine Arts, in Government College of Architecture and Sculptures.5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed their counter stating that the respondents 4 to 6 were selected as per the merit list and in strict-compliance of the rules. According to the respondents, the petitioner's allegations against the respondents 4 to 6 were vague and devoid of merits and therefore, the Writ Petition was liable to be rejected. 6. The third respondent filed a counter denying the petitioner's contentions that the private respondents 4 to 6 did not pass Tamil as one of the subjects in the Degree level and therefore, they were ineligible for selection. The third respondent, relying on the reply of the University of Madras in its RTI reply dated 07.01.2021, submitted that the contention of the petitioner was untenable inasmuch as the respondents 4 to 6 Page 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021passed a subject Art through Tamil Literature, which was equivalent to Tamil language. The 3rd respondent, therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition had no merits and deserved to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the very same selection was challenged by another candidate before this Court in W.P.No.3203 of 2021 and this Court, by its order dated 13.10.2022, upheld the selection and dismissed the Writ Petition. The learned counsel further submitted that the issue in this Writ Petition was fully covered by the above-said judgment and therefore, this Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the reply given to the RTI application filed by him under Right to Information Act, submitted that the respondents 4 to 6 did not satisfy Condition No.6B(ii) of the Notification relating to the Educational Qualification and therefore, the judgment relied on by the respondents did not apply to the present case. The learned counsel submitted that the selection of the private respondents 4 to 6 was illegal and deserved to be set aside. Page 5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 20219. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.10. It is to be seen if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment in W.P.No.3203 of 2021 dated 13.10.2022 is inapplicable to case, in view of the RTI reply given to the petitioner by the University of Madras, is tenable. The RTI reply is extracted and it reads as follows:-nfs;tp vz;.1brd;idg; gy;fiyf;fHfj;jpy; B.A. B.Com., B.Sc., Mfpa ,s';fiy gl;lg;gog;g[fspy; 2 tUl';fSf;F 4 gUt njh;t[fSf;F bkhHpg;ghlkhf gapw;Wtpf;fg;gLk; jkpH; 2004 Kjy; 2013 tiuapyhd fhyj;jpy; brd;idg; gy;fiyf;fHfj;jpd; fPH; kfhgypg[uj;jpy; bray;gl;L te;j Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mahabalipuram fy;Y}hpapYk; gapw;Wtpf;fg;gl;lbjdpy; mg;ghl tptu';fis tH';ft[k;.gjpy; vz;.1gapw;Wtpf;fg;gltpy;iy11. To the query raised by the third respondent to the Madras University, the reply given was as follows:-Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021nfs;tp vz;.1brd;idg; gy;fiyf;fHfj;jpw;F fPH; ,a';fp te;j Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mahabalipuram fy;Y}hpapy; tH';fg;gl;l BFA- Traditional Architecture. BFA - Traditional Drawing and Painting, B.Tech - Traditional Architecture Mfpa gog;g[fSf;F 2004 Kjy; 2010 tiuapyhd ghlj;jpl;lj;jpd; (Syllabus) efiy tH';FkhW nfhUfpnwd;.gjpy; vz;.196 gf;f';fisf; bfhz;l \d;W ghlg;gphpt[fspy; ghlj;jpl;lj;jpd; (Syllabus) efiy bgWtjwf;F kDjhuh; xU gf;fj;jpw;F +.2 tPjk; +.192-I/ gjpthsh;/ brd;idg; gy;fiyf;fHfk; vd;w bgahpy; vLf;fg;gl;l tiunthiy \ykhf brYj;jpdhy; tH';fg;gLk;.nfs;tp vz;.2brd;idg; gy;fiyf;fHfj;jpw;F fPH; ,a';fp te;j Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mahabalipuram fy;Y}hpapy; tH';fg;gl;l BFA- Traditional Architecture. BFA - Traditional Drawing and Painting, B.Tech - Traditional Architecture Mfpa gog;g[fSf;F 2004 Kjy; 2010 tiuapy; jkpiH xU ghlkhf gapw;Wtpj;jjw;fhd jftiy tH';FkhW nfhUfpnwd;.gjpy; vz;.22004 Kjy; 2010 tiuapy; brd;idg; gy;fiyf; fHfj;jpy; elj;jg;gl;l BFC- Traditional Architecture, BFA- Traditional Drawing and Painting, B.Tech - Traditional Architecture Mfpa ghlj;jpl;lj;jpy; jkpH; rhh;e;j xU jhs; gapw;Wtpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.12. From a reading of the query raised by the petitioner and the one raised by the third respondent and the reply given, it is seen that the query that was raised by the petitioner was very vague and therefore, the answer given was also not specific and pin-pointed. But, the query raised by the third respondent was very apt and it directly related to the Page 7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021Bachelor's Degree obtained by the respondents 4 to 6. The specific reply given by the Madras University was that Art through Tamil Literature was one of the Tamil subjects in Degree level. Hence, I find no merit in the petitioner's contention.13. More over, this Court, in W.P.No.3203 of 2021 on a comparative analysis of the specialized subjects in Tamil Literature undergone by the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 to 6 held that the respondents 4 to 6 studied specialized subjects in Tamil Literature. Paragraph Nos. 14 to 17 of the said judgment are relevant and read as follows:- 14. Admittedly, the respective private respondents have studied their graduation with the medium of instruction as Tamil. They have also studied specialized subjects in Tamil Literature which are as follows:-Sl.No.Syllabus1998 to 2013 (Non Semester Pattern)2014 onwards (Semester Pattern)1Nedunelvaadai Lines 72 - 130Art Through Tamil Literature (TZD)2MaduraikanchiLines 351-3703PattinapalaiLines 142 - 157Tamil I BTA/BTS/BTP 1:1:01Page 8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021Sl.No.Syllabus1998 to 2013 (Non Semester Pattern)2014 onwards (Semester Pattern)4Pari PaadalVerses on Sevvel & Thirumaal5SilappathigaramKunrak Kurvak,Vettava Vari, Aranketruk Khaadai6Naalayira Divya PrabandamPeriyazhvar PasurangalTamil II BTA/BTS/BTP 2:1:087Thevaarathil Appar PasurangalDescriptions of different temples and special features of Murthys8Periya PuranamSivamoorthangal9KalingathuparaniNatarajar, Bichadanar, Arthanaareswara, Somaskandhar, Kalasambara, Dakshinamoorthi, Sandikeswarar, Possalar Naayanar Verses Nos.1 - 11Tamil III BTA/BTS/BTP 3:1:1510Kambha RamayanamVerse No.1 Negerappadalam 13, 19, 23 - 3011SeevagasindhamaniKaanthruvaththal ayar Illambhagam Verse 590-29512ThanigaipuranamA scene of Agathiyar's getting Arul, 16 Dhiyaana slokaas of Lord SubramaniaTamil IV BTA/BTS/BTP 4:1:22 15. The Educational qualification requirement as per the notification dated 28.11.2019 is extracted hereunder:i) Must possess M.A.Degree in Ancient History and Archaeology or in Archaeology (OR)Must possess M.A.Degree in History or Indian History or in Tamil awarded by any of the University recognized by the University Grants Commission and A 'Post Graduate Diploma in Epigraphy and Archaeology' awarded by the institute of Epigraphy, Department of Archaeology, Government of Page 9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021Tamil Nadu or Post Graduate Diploma in Archaeology awarded by the Archaeological Survey of India. ii) Must have passed Tamil as one of the subjects in Degree level. 16. As seen from the educational qualification requirement, a candidate must have passed Tamil as one of the subjects in Degree level. It does not stipulate that Tamil language must have been a subject in the Degree level. The respective private respondents have studied their Degree level with medium of instruction as Tamil. They have also studied specialized subjects in Tamil Literature as observed earlier. Therefore, it cannot be said that the private respondents have not passed Tamil as one of the subjects in Degree level. The question of production of equivalence certificate by the private respondents will also not arise as their medium of instruction in their graduate study was only Tamil and that too when they have studied specialized subjects in Tamil literature only in Tamil.17. The private respondents having studied the entire Degree level with medium of instruction as Tamil and having studied specialized subjects in Tamil Literature, there was no necessity for the first respondent Commission to ask the respective private respondents for an equivalence certificate. The respective private respondents have also secured higher marks than the petitioner, which is also not in dispute. Page 10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 202114. As this Court already upheld the selection of the private respondents 4 to 6 in the said Writ Petition after detailed discussion of the entire facts, I find no reason to deviate from the said judgment. As the aforementioned judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case, I find no merit in the Writ Petition. 15. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 17.04.2025ASIPage 11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6709 of 2021N. MALA, J.ASITo1. The Secretary, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Director, Department of Archaeology, Tamil Valarchi Valagam, Tamizh Salai, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.3. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.Writ Petition No.6709 of 2021and W.M.P.Nos.7264 and 7266 of 202117.04.2025Page 12 of 12