Madras High Court Quashes Appointment Of 54 Coimbatore Corporation Junior Assistants, Terms Selection Process “Fraud”

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar held that recruitment to public services should inspire public confidence.

“Recruitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions associated with the functioning of the Government,” the court said.

The court noted that there was no selection committee constituted but only a verification committee headed by an Assistant Commissioner to verify the documents of the candidates, which was unknown to the service rules. Thus, the court noted that there was no valid selection committee as per the Service Rules or any procedure to assess the candidates were followed to assess the suitability and eligibility of the candidates.

The court emphasised that equal opportunity in public employment was a constitutional mandate. The court added that the tainted selection process was a ground to vitiate the entire selection process. The court also remarked that illegality in selection was not just a ground to vitiate the selection but also had larger repercussions in society.

“Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate. Article 16(1) clearly enumerates equality of opportunity in matters of public employment to any office and the State. Tainted process of selection is a ground to vitiate the process and beyond that, fraud or illegal selection would result in causing infringement of the fundamental rights of lakhs and lakhs of meritorious candidates, who all are longing to secure public employment through open competitive process. Therefore, any illegality in the process of selection is not only a ground to vitiate the selection, but larger repercussions on the society in the matter of protecting the equal opportunity in public employment is involved,” the court noted.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by a sanitary worker in the Corporation challenging the selection process, alleging that due process and law were not followed. The writ petition filed by the worker was dismissed on the ground that she had no locus standi to challenge the selection process, as she had not participated in it and was thus not an aggrieved person.

The bench, however, noted that the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporations General Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, for Class III posts contemplates a ratio of 2:1 between direct recruitment and promotion for the post of Junior Assistant, and thus even an in-service candidate who was qualified for appointment could participate in the selection process. The court held that the appellant was an in-service candidate working in Group IV category and who aspired to secure appointment or promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. The court thus held that the appellant was not alien to the case and thus, she had locus standi to file the pleas.

Justifying the recruitment process, the Corporation had argued that due process was followed and the candidates were appointed after verification. It was submitted that there was no favouritism or nepotism.

However, on going through the documents, the court noted that no actual selection had taken place and mere certificate verification committees had been constituted. The court observed that these committees were mere certificate verification committees which were acting under the guise of selection and interview committees, which was null and void and against the established principles of conducting selection to a public post.

The court noted that the post of Junior Assistant fell under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and an open selection process was to be conducted via written examination, viva voce and by applying the rules of reservations and other procedures. In the present case, the court noted that no written examination or any established procedure of assessment was undertaken through valid selection committees and thus, the entire selection process stood vitiated.

Thus, the court noted that there was no option but to set aside the entire selection process and ordered accordingly.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. E. Om Prakash, Senior Counsel for Mr. K. J. Shiva Arudhra

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. S. Silambanan, Senior Counsel for Mr. K. Magesh, Mr. M. S. Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr. A. P. Balaji

Case Title: Easwari and Others v The Chief Secretary and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 315

Case No: WA No. 286 of 2023