S. SENTHIL KUMARAN BOSE v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. and Connected Appeals
2026 INSC 645 : Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No.7906 of 2024 and connected matters
Decided on 15-06-2026
Coram: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
HEADNOTES
Service Law — Public Employment — Recruitment Process — Eligibility criteria — Workshop experience certificate — Retrospective renewal of approval to workshops.
Recruitment to 113 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II. Certain candidates were excluded on the ground that workshop approval was not in force during part of the experience period. Subsequently, retrospective approval was granted and re-verification undertaken.
Held, once the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department (MVMD) re-verified the workshop experience certificates and certified that the candidates possessed more than one year of qualifying experience in approved workshops, such candidates were entitled to be considered for inclusion in the select list and further stages of recruitment.
(Paras 10-13).
Recruitment and Selection — Candidate not at fault — Effect of pendency of renewal applications of workshops.
Held, candidates who acquired experience in workshops that were functioning with Government approval could not be prejudiced merely because applications for renewal of approval were pending with authorities. Delay in grant of renewal was beyond the control of candidates and workshop owners and could not deprive otherwise eligible candidates of consideration for public employment.
(Paras 15, 16).
Public Employment — Recruitment Process — Fresh selection directed — Level playing field.
Certain candidates whose names appeared in the revised list of 226 candidates challenged the direction requiring fresh recruitment exercise after reconsideration of workshop approvals.
Held, where a class of candidates had been wrongly excluded from participation for no fault of theirs, directing a fresh recruitment process to ensure equal opportunity and a level playing field was justified. Such exercise would enlarge the zone of consideration and enable selection of more meritorious candidates in public interest.
(Paras 16, 17).
Public Employment — Select List — Mere inclusion in select list — No vested right.
Held, mere inclusion of a candidate's name in a provisional or revised select list does not confer any vested right to appointment. Candidates whose names appeared in the revised list dated 28.04.2021 could not resist a fresh selection process when similarly situated eligible candidates had earlier been excluded from consideration.
(Para 17).
Service Law — Recruitment — Public interest — Larger pool of eligible candidates.
Held, where a larger pool of eligible candidates becomes available after correction of an arbitrary exclusion, continuation of recruitment from such enlarged pool promotes merit-based selection and serves public interest.
(Paras 16, 17).
Public Employment — Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) Quota — Proof of eligibility.
Candidates claiming benefit under PSTM quota produced certificates issued by Heads of Educational Institutions certifying that the diploma course was pursued in Tamil medium.
Held, where the recruitment notification did not prescribe any additional requirement, certificate issued by the Head of the Institution was sufficient proof of study in Tamil medium. TNPSC could not insist upon further certification from the Directorate of Technical Education.
(Paras 19, 21).
Recruitment Examination — Disclosure of Marks — Candidates outside zone of consideration.
Division Bench directed TNPSC to communicate marks obtained by candidates who did not fall within the zone of consideration while clarifying that answer scripts need not be supplied.
Held, disclosure of marks was justified in public interest considering prolonged litigation concerning the recruitment process. Communication of marks individually would promote transparency and help bring finality to disputes. Such disclosure does not automatically entitle candidates to copies of answer sheets.
(Paras 20-22).
Right to Information — Recruitment Examinations — Disclosure of marks.
Following the principle in Joint Directors and Central Public Information Officer v. T.R. Rajesh, disclosure of examination-related information may be directed where public interest so requires.
Held, Court was justified in directing disclosure of marks of candidates not falling within the zone of consideration, having regard to public interest and prolonged recruitment litigation.
(Paras 20-22).
Ratio Decidendi
- Eligible candidates cannot be excluded because of administrative delays in renewal of workshop approvals.
- Retrospective approval and re-verification of experience certificates can validly restore eligibility.
- Inclusion in a select list does not create an enforceable right to appointment.
- Fresh recruitment may be directed to ensure equal opportunity and a level playing field.
- PSTM eligibility is established through certificates issued by the Head of the Institution when the notification prescribes no additional requirement.
-
Disclosure of marks may be ordered where public interest warrants transparency in recruitment.
(Paras 13, 16, 17, 21, 22).
Held
Directions of the High Court regarding re-verification of workshop experience, fresh recruitment exercise, recognition of PSTM certificates and disclosure of marks of candidates outside the zone of consideration upheld. Recruitment process directed to be completed expeditiously in accordance with the High Court's timeline. Appeals disposed of.
(Paras 13, 17, 21-23)
No comments:
Post a Comment