The Supreme Court has held that the candidates cannot be denied government jobs due to delay in workshop approval renewals.

The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has observed that candidates who gained experience in approved workshops cannot be denied consideration merely because renewal approvals for those workshops were delayed by authorities.

The bench upheld the directions of the Madras High Court requiring a fresh selection exercise in the long-pending recruitment process for 113 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC).

The controversy arose from TNPSC’s recruitment process for 113 vacancies of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II under the Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Service. The selection process consisted of a written examination, verification of certificates and documents, and oral interviews. Initially, 2,176 applications were received, out of which 1,328 candidates were allowed to appear in the written examination. 

Following the written examination, only 33 candidates qualified and a list was published on 15 July 2019. Appointment orders were subsequently issued to 32 candidates. However, the selection process soon became embroiled in litigation over the validity of workshop experience certificates relied upon by candidates. 

The Madras High Court initially set aside the appointments and directed fresh verification of workshop experience certificates of all 1,328 candidates. Subsequent rounds of litigation followed, eventually leading to a revised list of 226 candidates being called for oral interviews in April 2021. 

The central dispute revolved around whether candidates could be disqualified because the workshops where they gained practical experience did not possess valid renewal approvals during certain periods, despite such approvals later being granted retrospectively.

The Division Bench of the Madras High Court had found that there was no uniform government policy governing retrospective renewal of workshop approvals. It observed that many workshops continued to function, repair government vehicles, and were generally recognised as approved establishments even during periods when renewal applications remained pending. 

The High Court therefore directed the State Government to take a fresh decision regarding retrospective approval of workshops and thereafter re-evaluate candidates’ eligibility.

Before the Supreme Court, the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department (MVMD) informed the Court that it had already complied with the High Court’s directions and conducted a comprehensive re-verification exercise. According to the department, retrospective approval had been granted to approved workshops and the workshop experience of all 1,328 candidates had been re-examined. 

The department’s report revealed that several candidates who were initially considered ineligible because of workshop approval issues actually possessed more than one year of qualifying experience once retrospective approvals were taken into account. The report also certified that 794 out of the 1,328 candidates satisfied the one-year workshop experience requirement prescribed under the recruitment notification. 

Taking note of this development, the Supreme Court observed that the issue of retrospective renewal had already been worked out and there was no challenge to the re-verification report. Consequently, the recruitment process should now proceed to its logical conclusion. 

A key finding of the Supreme Court was that candidates should not suffer because authorities delayed renewal decisions relating to workshops.

The Court endorsed the High Court’s view that candidates had no control over the timing of renewal approvals and could not be deprived of employment opportunities due to administrative lapses. It noted that workshops continued to function and even serviced government vehicles during the disputed periods. Therefore, excluding candidates solely on technical approval-related grounds would be unfair. 

The Court held that the High Court’s directions ensured a “level playing field” for all candidates and would facilitate selection from a broader and more meritorious pool of applicants. 

Several candidates whose names were included in the revised 226-candidate list argued that they should not be compelled to undergo another round of selection.

Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court ruled that inclusion in a provisional or revised select list does not create a vested right to appointment. The Court emphasised that these candidates were not being excluded from the process and would remain eligible to compete in the fresh selection exercise. 

According to the Court, if candidates were truly meritorious, they would succeed again in a fair and comprehensive recruitment process. 

Another issue before the Court concerned eligibility under the Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) quota.

TNPSC argued that certificates issued by heads of educational institutions should not automatically be accepted and that verification from the Directorate of Technical Education was necessary. However, both the Single Judge and the Division Bench had rejected this argument.

Affirming those findings, the Supreme Court held that the recruitment notification itself did not require any additional certification from the Directorate of Technical Education. Therefore, certificates issued by heads of institutions confirming study in Tamil medium were sufficient for claiming PSTM benefits. 

The TNPSC also challenged the High Court’s direction requiring disclosure of marks secured by candidates who did not fall within the zone of consideration.

The Supreme Court refused to interfere. Referring to the prolonged litigation that had surrounded the recruitment process for years, the Court held that disclosure of marks was justified in public interest and would promote transparency. However, it clarified that candidates would not be entitled to copies of their answer sheets merely because their marks were disclosed. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Supreme Court Strikes Down RTI Exemption for Lokayukta Police Wing