The Madras High Court stated that the State must act in a fair and transparent manner, ensuring equal opportunity for all eligible candidates, and strongly criticised any form of bias or favouritism in government recruitment processes while ordering rightful appointment.
The Madras High Court emphasized the necessity of impartiality in public employment by overturning the denial of a candidate’s application for the position of B.T. Assistant (Tamil).
The court instructed the authorities to appoint her to the role after hearing a plea from a female candidate who claimed that the Teachers Recruitment Board manipulated employment exchange records to favor a less senior candidate, breaching recruitment regulations.
Justice T. Vinod Kumar, who led the Bench, remarked that,
“The State ought to conduct itself in a fair and transparent manner by affording opportunity to all eligible candidates to fulfil aspirations of securing a government job, instead of showing favouritism or bias in favour of any particular candidate.”
Also Read: “Law Should Build Bridges, Not Walls”: Justice Surya Kant
Advocate V. Sivalingam represented the petitioner, while A. Bakkiyalakshmi, GA, was present for the respondents.
The petitioner, holding a B.Lit and B.Ed degree, registered with the employment exchange in November 1992 while awaiting selection for the B.T. Assistant (Tamil) position.
However, during the 2012 recruitment, a junior candidate, who had registered after her, was appointed. The petitioner claimed her initial complaint in 2012 was overlooked, prompting her to seek the High Court’s intervention in 2013.
She argued that the appointment contravened employment exchange seniority rules and that authorities had manipulated the other candidate’s registration date to grant him seniority. Despite multiple representations and a previous directive from a Division Bench to verify the facts, her concerns were dismissed.
The authorities contended in court that the other candidate had registered in April 1992, leading to her petition’s rejection.
However, through a Right to Information (RTI) request, she later acquired confirmation that the other candidate’s actual registration date was April 1993, several months after hers.
The Madras High Court scrutinized the records and found the Teachers Recruitment Board had provided inconsistent statements at various points. One department acknowledged the candidate’s registration as occurring in 1993, yet the Board relied on an altered 1992 date to justify his appointment.
The Bench noted that the Board failed to submit a counter-affidavit to defend its decision, while other authorities distanced themselves from accountability.
The Court determined that the irregularities and manipulation of records indicated a lack of integrity in the selection process.
The Bench stated,
“The act of altering the year of registration to advance one candidate’s seniority by a year shows undue favouritism and cannot be countenanced in law.”
Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh (2025), the Bench reaffirmed that “absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instils and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions are the ones who have deservedly been installed to such positions.”
The Court concluded that throughout the selection process, “the respondent had acted in utter disregard of the fairness which is required to be exhibited while dealing with public appointments.”
The Madras High Court cancelled the rejection order and directed the authorities to appoint the petitioner as B.T. Assistant, effective from the date of the other candidate’s appointment, along with all consequential benefits.
The writ petition was thus granted, and the related miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Case Title: T. Gangeswari v. The State of Madras & Ors.