The Supreme Court has affirmed a fresh recruitment exercise for 113 Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II posts in Tamil Nadu, ruling that a candidate’s inclusion in a revised select list does not, by itself, create an enforceable right to appointment.
A Bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar observed that fairness in public recruitment must prevail where eligible candidates were previously denied a proper opportunity to compete. The Court noted that directing a fresh selection process did not strip any candidate of the chance to participate and, therefore, no vested right could arise merely from a place in a revised selection list.
The dispute traces back to a recruitment notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) in 2018 to fill 113 Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II vacancies. More than 2,100 applications were received, and after scrutiny, 1,328 candidates were allowed to sit for the written examination. Ultimately, 32 candidates advanced to the interview stage based on the requirement of one year of workshop experience.
The controversy centred on the validity of that workshop experience. Several candidates were excluded because the workshops where they had worked lacked renewed government approval at the relevant time. The issue later became more complicated when the State granted retrospective approvals to those establishments.
Earlier proceedings before the Madras High Court resulted in the provisional selection of 32 candidates being set aside, with directions for a broader verification exercise. The matter travelled through multiple rounds of litigation, including an earlier challenge before the Supreme Court.
Following renewed scrutiny, TNPSC called 226 candidates for oral tests in 2021. Fresh challenges were mounted, leading to further judicial intervention. Eventually, the High Court directed that the recruitment process be undertaken afresh and instructed the Transport Department to decide questions relating to retrospective approval of workshops before the final selection was completed.
A group of candidates who had figured in the earlier list of 32 approached the Supreme Court, arguing that their names deserved inclusion in the final selection list. Another set of candidates questioned the High Court’s decision to restart the recruitment exercise.
Examining the matter, the Supreme Court noted that retrospective approval had since been granted to the workshops concerned. As a result, the experience certificates of the affected candidates were re-verified and found to satisfy the eligibility criteria.
The Court held that these candidates were entitled to be considered while preparing the final select list. However, it declined to interfere with the broader direction requiring a fresh recruitment exercise, emphasizing that public employment processes must ensure equal opportunity to all eligible applicants.
The judgment underscores a recurring principle in service law: selection lists may create an expectation of consideration, but they do not automatically confer an indefeasible right to appointment, particularly where courts find that the original recruitment process failed to provide a level playing field.
