____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved onPronounced on

21.01.2026

23.01.2026

28.01.2026

05.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P. NOS.2889, 6011, 10700, 10706, 10708, 10710, 10712, 10701, 11105,

11108, 11110, 11112, 11109, 13854, 24235, 5185, 44374, 44376,

47569 & 49936 OF 2025

W.P. NOS.941, 1067, 1074, 1058, 1045, 1051 & 1075 OF 2026

AND

WMP Nos. 3190, 6613, 6614, 15570, 15573, 15575, 27286, 27289, 5764,

5765, 53095 & 55817 OF 2025

W.M.P. NOS.1136, 1138, 1238, 1247, 1226, 1215,1217, 1220 & 1250 OF 2026

W.P. NO. 2889 OF 2025

S. Mahalakshmi .. Petitioner

- Vs -

1.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

Rep. by its Secretary, Park Town,

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Road,

VOC Nagar, Chennai 600 003.

2.The Superintendent of Police

Central Bureau of Investigation,

Anti Corruption Branch, Chennai.

(R2 –Suo Motu impleaded as per order

dated 18.02.2025 in W.P. 2889/2025 .. Respondents

1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

W.P. No.2889 of 2025 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the

records relating to the order of the respondent in Memorandum No.420/PSD-

D1/2017 dated 30.12.2024 and to quash the same and consequently direct the

respondent to confirm the Memorandum No.420/PSD-D1/2017 dated

15.08.2018.

For Petitioners:Mr. S.Gunaseelan in

WP 2889/2025

Mr. P.N.Vignesh in

WP 6011/2025

Mr. K.Balu in WP 10700, 10706,

10708, 10710, 10712, 10701,

11105, 11108, 11109, 11110,

11112, 44374, 44376, 47569 &

49936/2025

Ms. Y.Kavitha for M/s. P.V.S.

Giridhar Associates in WP

13854/2025

Mr. L.Chandrakumar in WP

24235 & 5185/2025

Mr. A.Manoj Kumar in WP 941,

1045, 1051, 1058, 1067 & 1074

& 1075/26

For Respondents:Mr. P.S.Raman, AG, assisted by

Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu, AGP for

RR-2 & 3 in WP 6011/2025, for

RR-1 to 5 & 8 in WP 13854/2025

& for RR-2 & 3 in WP 24235/25

Mr. P.Kumaresan, AAG, assisted

by Mr. K.Karthik Jagannathan for

TNPSC

2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

Mr. P.Balathandayuthan, Spl.GP

for R-2 in WP 5185/25 & 1058,

1074 & 1075/26

Ms. G.Vrinda for Mr.

K.Srinivasan, SC/Spl.PP, for CBI

Mr. R.Bharanidharan for TNPSC

in WP 941, 1045, 1051, 1058,

1067, 1074 & 1075/26

Mr. T.Sreenivasan, Spl. GP for

R-2 in WP 941/26

Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu, AGP for

R-2 in WP 1067, 1051 &

1075//26

COMMON ORDER

The present batch of writ petitions have been filed by the respective

petitioners whose selection and the consequential appointment have been set at

naught by cancelling the provisional selection and allotment made by the

Commission/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short ‘the Commission’)

citing malpractice alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in securing

their appointment and also the impugned order removing the petitioners from

service is put in issue before this Court.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts necessary for considering

the present issue could be summarised thus :-

3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

Pursuant to the selection and appointment of the petitioners to the post

of Assistant/Personal Clerk in the Combined Civil Services Examination – II 2017-

2018 (Non-Interview Post) (Group-II A Services) in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat

Service/Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, the respective petitioners joined the said

post. Upon completion of the mandatory period of probation, the service of the

petitioners were regularised. While some of the petitioners were arrested and

upon their arrest the said petitioners were suspended, the other petitioners were

suspended, which suspension of the petitioners was on various dates. The

petitioners, who were arrested had obtained bail. Thereafter, the petitioners

filed representation seeking revocation of their suspension by filing

representation before the Commission. Since no orders were passed on the

same writ petitions were filed seeking direction to the respondent to pass orders

and inspite of directions issued by this Court to consider the representation of

the petitioners in the light of G.O. (Ms.) No.81, Human Resources Management

Department, however, the representation of the petitioners were rejected

holding that revocation cannot be complied with citing that CBI investigation is

under progress. Aggrieved by the same dismissed the petitioners preferred writ

petitions seeking quashment of the plea for rejection of suspension and seeking

reinstatement in which this Court directed the respondent to reinstate the

4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

petitioners in service. Inspite of the said order, vide the respective impunged

proceedings, the petitioners were removed from service aggrieved by which the

present writ petitions have been preferred.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners in unison

submitted that the recruitment process relating to selection and allotment of the

candidates had come to an end by 2018 and the petitioners, who were selected

and allotted to the various departments have been appointed in the posts way

back in the year 2018 and their probation was approved in the year 2020 and

their services were regularised. However, out of blue, the order of suspension

has been passed in the year 2020, much after regularisation on the ground of

alleged malpractice alleged to have been committed by the respective petitioners

in the selection process.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel that this Court, considering

the prolonged suspension of the petitioners from service had, in the year 2023,

passed the order directing the respondent to consider the representation of the

petitioners for reinstatement, which, however, was rejected citing the pending

CBI enquiry.

5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the rejection order was

challenged, which resulted in an affirmative direction by this Court to reinstate

the petitioners, whilst only to be removed from service by the appointing

authority pointing out that CBI enquiry is pending. Further, the provisional

selection of the petitioners itself was cancelled by invalidating the OMR answer

sheets by the Commission and rejecting the candidature of the petitioners.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel that once the petitioners are

appointed in Government service, their services can be terminated either by way

of dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement only by following the Tamil Nadu

Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) and the

Commission, once it completes the process of selection and allotment would

become functus officio for all purposes.

7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioners

have not been put through the rigours of the Rules before either passing the

order of suspension and, thereafter, the consequential termination and merely

on the basis of certain investigative report, 39 candidates were alleged to have

6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

obtained appointment by fraudulent means through malpractice and they have

been removed from service. Once a person is appointed into a service and

moreso the said individual is regularised in service, the individual can be

terminated/removed/dismissed from service only in accordance with the Rules

pertaining to a Government servant. However, curiously, with following the

Rules, the petitioners have been removed from service without holding any

enquiry and going through any disciplinary proceedings, which is grossly

perverse, illegal and arbitrary.

8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that there is gross

violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the

petitioners to put forth their side of the case and merely placing reliance upon a

report, alleged to have been filed by the CBI in the criminal case, the petitioners

have been removed from service, which is erroneous.

9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that merely on the

basis of allegation, the petitioners have been removed from service and there is

no iota of evidence that is placed before this Court or before the authority, which

formed the basis of the removal of the petitioners from service, except stating

7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

the fact that the petitioners have obtained the appointment through fraudulent

means and, therefore, their selection is void ab initio. It is the submission of the

learned counsel that an opportunity ought to have been granted to the

petitioners to submit their case and presuming that the petitioners have

committed malpractice merely based on the report submitted by CBI is a clear

violation of principles of natural justice.

10. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even if the

departmental action is premised on preponderance of probabilities, the

petitioners having been appointed, a disciplinary enquiry is required to be

undertaken and probability can be arrived at only on the basis of a duly

constituted and consequential report of the said enquiry and in respect of an act,

which is alleged to have taken place before the appointment of the petitioners,

the appointment of the petitioners cannot be struck down by way of removal

without any grant of opportunity.

11. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that pursuant to the

order of removal the further proceedings of the Commission had come to be

passed cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioners and invalidating the

8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

OMR answer sheets, which is highly improper as a judgment has been passed

against the candidature of the petitioners even without trial, which is alien to the

criminal justice system.

12. In fine, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the order of

removal passed by the Government and the cancellation of the provisional

selection of the petitioners by invalidating the OMR answer sheets without

affording an opportunity to the petitioners is highly illegal, perverse, arbitrary

and irrational and the same deserves to be interfered with by directing the

reinstatement of the petitioner and also securing the provisional selection of the

petitioners.

13. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing for the Commission

submitted that large-scale malpractice was noticed in a particular centre at

Rameshwaram by the Commission leading to the lodging of the complaint and

the resultant investigation, which was initially carried out by CB-CID, but later

transferred to CBI on the basis of the orders of this Court.

9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

14. It is the further submission of the learned Advocate General that the

enquiry by the 2

nd

respondent and the report along with the materials collected

during the course of the investigation revealed that certain candidates with the

connivance of the employees of the Commission had indulged in manipulating

the OMR answer sheets, which was evident from the materials placed by the 2

nd

respondent.

15. It is the further submission of the learned Advocate General that based

on the said investigation and since the whole process of recruitment was

manipulated, more particularly in a particular centre at Rameshwaram, the

Commission had undertaken the stand of cancelling the provisional allotment

made to such of those persons, who had since been appointed on the basis of the

recruitment drive conducted by the Commission by invoking its powers and on

the basis of the provisions provided in the Recruitment Notification No.10/2017

dated 27.4.2017, through which the candidates were selected.

16. Referring to clause 13 (g) of the aforesaid notification, learned

Advocate General submitted that unfair means were strictly prohibited in the

aforesaid notification and if the candidates were found to have indulged in

10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

adopting unfair means, debarment was provided for under clause 19 (a) of

Commission’s Instructions to Applicants, which is applicable for the year 2017-

2018. Therefore, the Commission, invoking its powers and finding infraction

under clause 13 (g) and 19 (a) aforesaid, has cancelled the provisional allotment

made to the petitioners and also debarred them from further appearing in any of

the recruitment drives conducted by the Commission.

17. It is the further submission of the learned Advocate General that once

the provisional allotment of the petitioners stood cancelled, the appointment

made, which was a consequence of the provisional appointment also ceased to

survive and, accordingly, the petitioners were removed from service and,

therefore, the said removal from service cannot be said to be erroneous.

18. It is the further submission of the learned Advocate General that the

malpractice and misconduct committed by the petitioners goes to the root of the

recruitment process and once it is found that the petitioners indulged in

malpractice to secure the appointment, there arises no necessity for the

department to conduct any disciplinary proceeding to remove the petitioners

from service when the 2

nd

respondent had cancelled the provisional allotment,

11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

the consequential appointment would not survive and the consequential removal

cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse.

19. It is the further submission of the learned Advocate General that the

selection of the petitioners have been obtained by fraudulent means and,

therefore, their entry into service itself becomes void and non-est and the said

selection itself is a nullity from inception and once the selection becomes void ab

initio, the appointment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the petitioners

cannot be permitted to hold the said post to which they were allotted and

appointed.

20. It is the further submission of the learned Advocate General that the

malpractice committed in the recruitment, though would not be construed as a

misconduct committed in the course of employment and, therefore, the removal

of the petitioners would not be governed by the provisions and relevant rules of

the said appointing authority as the said misconduct was not a misconduct in the

course of the service when the petitioners were not even Government servants

and, therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they could be removed only by

resorting to the procedure contemplated under the relevant rules is wholly

12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

misconceived. Rightly appreciating the aforesaid facts, the Commission has

cancelled the provisional allotment and as a consequence thereof, the petitioners

have been removed from service, which does not require any interference at the

hands of this Court.

21. In fine, it is the submission of the learned Advocate General that the

Commission has followed all the aforesaid procedures contemplated in the

recruitment notification while cancelling the provisional appointment and the

consequential removal of the petitioners by the appointing authority does not

suffer the vice of any illegality or perversity and the same does not require any

interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the

present writ petitions.

22. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced

by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials

available on record. A comprehensive report in a closed cover has also been

placed by the 2

nd

respondent before this Court with regard to the investigative

process, which has been perused by this Court.

13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

23. The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners relate to

the power of the Commission in cancelling the provisional allotment, as

according to the petitioners, once the provisional selection and allotment is made

and the candidates are appointed in a particular post, the Commission becomes

functus officio and, therefore, no action can be taken by the Commission and if at

all any action has to be taken against the petitioners, it could be only by the

respective appointing authorities by resorting to the relevant rules by initiating

disciplinary action against the alleged delinquents and not by the Commission.

24. The present case revolves around the malpractice alleged to have been

committed by the petitioners in connivance with the employees of the

Commission. According to the Commission, after publishing of the provisional

selection list and subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners, in the year

2018, suspicion was cast on the manner in which certain appointments relatable

to the petitioners might have been secured and, therefore, the Commission laid

the complaint leading to a CB-CID enquiry and, thereafter, upon filing of a writ

petition before the Madurai Bench of this Court, the matter was entrusted to be

investigated by the CBI, viz., the 2

nd

respondent herein, which, thereupon, took

up investigation and furnished a report dated 9.10.2024.

14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

25. From the evidence which was placed before the Commission by the 2

nd

respondent, the 2

nd

respondent had concluded that the petitioners had got

themselves appointed by committing malpractice by adopting fraudulent means

and with the connivance of the employees of the Commission. The gravemen of

the allegations against the petitioners is that they have indulged in grave

malpractice amounting to subversion of the conduct of the examination, which

led to the Commission invalidating their OMR answer sheet and cancelling their

provisional selection and rejecting their candidature vide the impugned order.

26. The following issues arise for consideration of this Court in the present

petitions :-

i)Whether the Commission is empowered to cancel the

provisional selection and allotment of the petitioners

when the entire selection process is completed and the

petitioners have been appointed and their services

were regularised.

15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

ii)If the cancellation of selection is held to be bad, what

is the recourse open to the Commission to deal with

the allegations against the petitioners.

iii)If the cancellation of selection is held to be bad, would

the removal of the petitioners, by the appointing

authorities, from service without following the

procedure contemplated under the service rules,

survive.

27. To buttress their stand on the issue of cancellation of selection and

invalidation of the OMR answer sheets, the respondents place reliance upon

clause 13 (g) of Notification No.10/2017 dated 27.4.2017 and for better clarity,

the same is quoted hereunder:-

“Unfair means strictly prohibited : No applicants shall copy

from the papers of any other applicants or permit his papers to

be copied or give or attempt to give or obtain or attempt to

obtain irregular assistance of any description.”

28. The aforesaid clause 13 (g) would only relate to acts which are done by

the candidates during the course of the examination. In the present case, the

allegation against the petitioners relate to tampering of the OMR answer sheets

16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

after the same was handed over to the invigilators by conniving with the

employees of the Commission. The said alleged act, though would fall within the

meaning of malpractice, however, as the same is committed outside the exam

hall, it cannot be brought within the ambit of clause 13 (g) of the Notification, as

clause 13 (g) would only relate to acts, that are perpetrated in the exam hall.

Therefore, the reliance placed on the said clause is wholly misconceived and the

same is liable to be rejected.

29. Coming to the next provision on which the Commission claims to have

power to cancel the provisional selection and allotment of the petitioner is on the

basis of clause 19 (a) in the Commission’s “Instructions to Applicants” applicable

to the year 2017-2018, which provides for ‘Debarment’, which reads as under :-

“Debarment : a) If an applicant attempts any tempering,

alteration with the documents or certificates, he is liable to be

debarred from appearing for any of the selections and

examinations conducted by the commission and consequently

from entry into public service itself.”

30. Even herein, clause 19 (a) relates to tampering/alteration of

documents or certificates. However, the tampering/alteration of documents,

which falls within clause 19 (a) would only be relatable to documents, which are

17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

obtained by the candidates and which are in possession of the candidates. It

cannot be made relatable to the tampering/alteration of the answer sheets, as

the said alleged acts, have been done when the said documents were in the

custody of the Commission or its agency and, therefore, the said clause cannot be

taken in aid of by the Commission to debar the petitioners.

31. If the Commission cannot resort to any of the aforesaid provisions,

could be petitioners be allowed to go scot-free, inspite of the allegations levelled

against them and investigation pointing a finger of suspicion against them and in

such cases, what is the recourse that could be taken by the Commission is the

next question that falls before this Court.

32. Issue, similar to the above, fell for consideration of the Apex Court in

State of West Bengal – Vs – Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors. (AIR

2025 SC 1882 :: MANU/SC/0438/2025), wherein, the Supreme Court, after

discussing the legal position on the said subject and analysing a catena of case

laws, more particularly, the decision in Inderpreet Singh Kahion & Ors. – Vs –

State of Pubjab & Ors. (2006 (11) SCC 356), wherein three-pronged test has been

adumbrated by the Apex Court, held as under :-

18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

“7. This Court in several cases has examined the question when

the entire selection process should be struck down in case of

irregularities. It will be apposite to refer to some of the decisions as

the ratio and reasoning, in our opinion, is clear and does not suffer

from contradictions. In Sachin Kumar and Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate

Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Ors.,   MANU/SC/0145/2021 :

2021:INSC:147 : (2021) 4 SCC 631 this Court observed that

determining when the examination process is vitiated by

irregularities requires an in-depth fact-finding inquiry. The answer

lies in examining whether the irregularities were systemic enough to

undermine the sanctity of the process. In some cases, the

irregularities may border on or even constitute fraud, which severely

damages the credibility and legitimacy of the process. In such cases,

the only option is to cancel the result entirely. These are situations

where it is difficult to separate the tainted from the untainted

participants, and the irregularities are widespread, indicating a

malaise or fraud that has corrupted the process. On the other hand,

there are cases where only some participants have committed

irregularities. In such cases, it may be possible to segregate the

wrongdoers from those who adhered to the rules. The innocent

should not suffer for the actions of the wrongdoers. By segregating

the guilty, the selection process for the untainted candidates can

proceed to its logical conclusion. This aligns with the principle of

equality of opportunity Under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of

India, as well as the fundamental requirement of Article 14 of the

Constitution, which mandates a fair, equitable, and reasonable

process. Care must be taken to ensure that the innocent are not

unfairly penalized alongside the wrongdoers by cancelling the entire

process. To treat the innocent and the wrongdoers equally would

violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as it would involve treating

19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

unequals equally. The innocent should not be punished for faults

they did not commit. Finally, while the decision of the recruiting

body is subject to judicial control, the body must retain a measure of

discretion.

8. Sachin Kumar (supra) refers to an earlier decision of three

Judges of this Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas

Chandra Sinha and Ors.   MANU/SC/0069/1970 : 1970:INSC:59 :

(1970) 1 SCC 648 where it was held that when the conduct of all

examinees, or at least the vast majority, at a particular examination

centre reveals the use of unfair means, it may not be necessary for

the board to give individual opportunities of hearing to the

candidates if the entire examination is being cancelled. This is not a

case where anyone is charged with unfair means and would need to

defend themselves. An examination vitiated by widespread unfair

means falls into a separate category, so giving notice in individual

cases is not required.

9. In Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P.,

Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Ors.   MANU/SC/0090/1962

: 1962:INSC:45 : AIR 1962 SC 1110 a Constitution Bench of this Court

held that when there is a discovery of widespread unfair practices,

such as the leakage of question papers or destruction of answer

books, it may not be necessary to give each examinee an

opportunity to be heard. While it may not be appropriate to

completely whittle down the requirement of natural justice and fair

play, a straitjacket formula cannot be applied when the examination

was not properly conducted or when the majority of the examinees

did not act as they should have. Therefore, insisting that the Board

should hold a detailed inquiry into each individual case was

considered incorrect. It was also observed that such an approach

20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

would delay the functioning of an autonomous body like the Board

of High School and Intermediate Education.

10. In line with the above ratio, this Court in Anamica Mishra

and Ors. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Ors.

MANU/SC/0026/1989 : 1989:INSC:339 : (1990) Supp SCC 692 has

held that the cancellation of the entire recruitment process was not

justified as there was no systemic flaw in the entire recruitment

process, and the issue was only with regard to calling the candidates

for interview. However, in Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v.

Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Ors.   MANU/SC/1453/1998 :

(1998) 9 SCC 236 the entire examination was cancelled in view of the

report of mass copying and leakage of the question paper. In

Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. (supra), the teachers did not

object to the students entering the examination hall with books,

indicating their complicity. It was held that the fact that some

innocent students may have suffered in the given facts was

inconsequential.

11. Similarly, in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajesh P.U.,

Puthuvalnikathu and Anr.,   MANU/SC/0509/2003 : 2003:INSC:343 :

(2003) 7 SCC 285 this Court examined a case where a Special

Committee scrutinized the answer sheets of 134 successful and 184

unsuccessful candidates, identifying only 31 as involved in unfair

practices. Based on this, the Court struck down the decision of the

competent authority to cancel the entire recruitment process,

deeming it extreme, unreasonable, and unnecessary given the

circumstances. The Court applied the test of whether there were

widespread, pervasive issues that had undermined the entire

process and whether it was impossible to weed out those benefiting

from the irregularities or illegalities.

21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

12. In yet another decision in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Ors. v.

State of Punjab and Ors.   MANU/SC/2433/2006 : 2006:INSC:288 :

(2006) 11 SCC 356 this Court elucidated three principles which must

be adhered to when cancelling appointments. First, there must be

satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of the material collected so as

to enable the State to conclude that the selection process was

tainted. Second, to determine whether the illegalities committed go

to the root of the matter and vitiate the entire selection process,

such satisfaction should be based on a reasoned and thorough

investigation conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Third,

there must be sufficient material to support the conclusion that the

majority of the appointments were part of the fraudulent purpose or

that the system itself was corrupt. This three-pronged test, as

outlined by Sinha J., is appropriate and should be adhered to.

13. The precursor to Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) involved

raids that led to the recovery of large sums of cash from the house

of the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission. The

allegations suggested that the Chairman - who served from 1996 to

2002 - had made several appointments between 1998 and 2001 for

extraneous considerations, including monetary ones. The affected

Appellants before this Court, whose services were terminated,

comprised four categories of officers selected through four

recruitment examinations held between 1997 and 2001. Two FIRs

came to be registered against the Chairman and other officers of the

Public Service Commission. However, among the selectees, an FIR

was filed only against one. In this factual background, Sinha J. drew

a distinction between a proven case of mass cheating in a Board

Exam and an unproven charge of corruption in the context of

appointment of a civil servant. The en masse termination order

setting aside several selections spread over 3-4 years was reversed.

22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

This was an unprecedented case of mass termination, with a

walloping impact and consequences. Applying the threefold factual

and legal test, en masse termination was set aside. In this context, it

was observed that termination orders should only be issued in cases

where it is found to be impossible or highly improbable to separate

the tainted cases from the non-tainted ones.

* * * * * * *

18. In Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.

MANU/SC/0821/2024 : 2024:INSC:568 : (2024) 9 SCC 743 this

Court observed that a holistic view must be adopted by

assessing the extent of unfair means used and whether it is

possible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted

ones. The court must ensure that allegations of malpractice

are substantiated and that the material on record, including

investigative reports, supports this conclusion. There must be

at least some evidence for the court to reach such a

conclusion. However, the standard of evidence need not be

unduly strict. Specifically, the material on record need not

point to a single, definitive conclusion that malpractice

occurred at a systemic level. Nevertheless, there must be a real

possibility of systemic malaise, as reflected in the material

before the court.

19. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid

discussion:

• When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic

irregularities, such as malaise or fraud, that undermine

the integrity of the entire selection process, the result

should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and

23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

when possible, segregation of tainted and untainted

candidates should be done in consonance with fairness

and equity.

• The decision to cancel the selection en masse

must be based on the satisfaction derived from

sufficient material collected through a fair and

thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the

material collected to conclusively prove malpractice

beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of evidence

should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise.

The probability test is applicable.

• Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted

candidates, when broad and deep manipulation in the

selection process is proven, due weightage has to be

given to maintaining the purity of the selection process.

• Individual notice and hearing may not be

necessary in all cases for practical reasons when the

facts establish that the entire selection process is

vitiated with illegalities at a large scale.”

33. From the above, it is clear that the three principles which must be

adhered to when cancelling appointments are that, viz.,

i)There must be satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of the

material collected so as to enable the State to conclude

that the selection process was tainted;

24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

ii)To determine whether the illegalities committed go to the

root of the matter and vitiate the entire selection process

and such satisfaction should be based on a reasoned and

thorough investigation conducted in a fair and transparent

manner; and

iii)There must be sufficient material to support the conclusion

that the majority of the appointments were part of the

fraudulent purpose or that the system itself was corrupt.

34. In the present case, firstly it is alleged that the selection process stood

vitiated in a particular centre in Rameshwaram; secondly, it is alleged that the

applicants/candidates who took the exams from the said centre, were

candidates, who were from various parts of the State, which raised a doubt as to

the veracity of the said candidates as they are alleged to have secured the

leading ranks in the examination; thirdly, the answer sheets (OMR sheets) of the

said candidates were found to have been tampered with, as was evidenced from

the report of the 2

nd

respondent. The investigation and the materials collected

through the said investigation have led to the cancellation of the provisional

selection and allotment of the petitioners and also invalidating their OMR sheets

and the subsequent debarment of the petitioners from participating in future

selection process. However, the selection process of all the candidates in the

said centre was not put in issue and it is also not clear as to the status of the

25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

other candidates who took the exams from the said centre and whether any

candidate, who took the exam in the particular centre was selected and

appointed and is still in the service of the State.

35. It is to be pointed out that the recruitment process was initiated in the

year 2017 and results were declared on 7.3.2018 and, thereafter, the petitioners

were allotted to various departments and the respective departments have also

appointed the petitioners. Thereafter, in the year 2018, subsequent to the

appointment of the petitioners, it is the case of the Commission that suspicion

arose with regard to certain malpractice that might have been committed in the

recruitment process, which led to the registration of the complaint and

investigation by the CB-CID which was, thereafter, transferred to the CBI. In

effect, the criminal machinery was set in motion on the basis of the complaint

and the consequent registration of the FIR and filing of the charge sheet before

the competent civil court, which charge sheet, it is still not clear, as to whether

cognizance has been taken of the same. Though a report has been given to the

Commission by the 2

nd

respondent pointing out the alleged tampering and

malpractice committed by various persons, including the petitioners, more

particularly from the centre at Rameshwaram, however, the materials which are

26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

placed before this Court only reveal that there are allegations, against the

petitioners, but the said allegations cannot be taken at face value to hold that

there is material, which warrants action being taken against the petitioners by

the Commission, as even according to the Commission, it is alleged that the

petitioners might have indulged in malpractice. Therefore, there is an iota of

doubt even in the mind of the Commission, which would be cleared only after the

completion of the criminal trial.

36. True it is that there is some material to infer that some malpractice

might have happened while handling the OMR sheets and through the

investigation allegation is made that the petitioners are involved by conniving

with the officials of the Commission, but that allegation cannot be the basis for

the Commission to cancel the provisional selection and allotment of the

petitioners, as the complaint has emanated from the Commission and the

criminal machinery has been set in motion and only the result of the criminal trial

could form the basis for taking any action against the petitioners.

37. If large scale malpractice had happened and the entire selection

process is cancelled, then the issue would have to be looked at differently. But

27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

when allegations have been raised against a particular group of individuals on the

basis of the complaint and further investigation, which has resulted in the filing of

the charge sheet, the Commission has to await the outcome of the trial to take

any further action against the petitioners and they cannot act as the disciplinary

authority and cancel the selection and allotment of the petitioners, moreso when

only charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners, which is yet to be taken

cognizance of by the criminal court and without going through the rigours of the

criminal trial, the materials collected against the petitioners cannot be put

against them by the Commission saying that the materials prove their culpability

in the offence, as the said materials have to be tested at the time of trial.

Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commission in and by which the

selection and allotment of the petitioners have been cancelled by invalidating the

OMR answer sheet definitely requires to be interfered with, as upon the selection

and allotment, without the criminal trial coming to a close, the position of the

Commission would have to be held as functus officio and the Commission cannot

cancel the provisional selection and invalidate the OMR answer sheet of the

petitioners.

28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

38. Coming to the removal of the petitioners by the respective appointing

authorities, who were initially under suspension, but who were, thereafter,

directed to be reinstated on the orders of this Court, but were not reinstated and

were removed from service, a sample of the relevant portion of the proceedings

in and by which the petitioners have been removed from service proceeds thus :-

“3) And whereas, the criminal case registered in Crime

Branch CID had been transferred to Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) for further investigation. The Central

Bureau of Investigation in its investigation report has reported

that all the 39 accused candidates obtained appointment of

Group II-A Assistant in various departments of Government of

Tamil Nadu through malpractices and is still holding the said

posts. Since their selection & appointment for the Group IIA

post is by fraudulent means, their selection is void ab initio. As

such, the Central Bureau of Investigation has recommended to

remove them from service. The government have also

instructed to take action as recommended by CBI.”

39. Based on the aforesaid reasoning, the impugned orders of removal of

the petitioners from service had come to be passed. Would the aforesaid

removal orders stand the test of judicial scrutiny, when the petitioners are

approved probationers and their services have been regularised is the moot

question that requires consideration of this Court.

29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

40. It is the time tested ratio of the Courts that the removal of an

employee from service should be in accordance with the Rules governing the said

employment. It could be stated without contradiction that every service rule

provides for the manner in which an employee could be removed from service

and the said service rules provide for a disciplinary mechanism by initiating a

disciplinary proceeding and affording an opportunity of hearing to the employee

through a full-fledged enquiry so as to enable the department to establish the

charge and for the employee to refute the charge and get himself/herself

absolved from the charge. Without following the said procedure, removing an

employee from service for any allegation, howsoever grave the allegation may

be, is grossly perverse and impermissible.

41. In the present case, the impugned orders passed by the respective

Departments/appointing authorities reveal that based on the recommendation of

the CBI to remove the petitioners from service for the grave malpractice alleged

to have been committed by them, the Government had directed the appointing

authorities to take action as recommended by CBI. This Court is at a loss to

understand the purport and meaning of the directions of the Government.

30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

42. However, it is to be pointed out that the Government could only direct

the appointing authorities to take action in accordance with the service rules

pursuant to the communication of the CBI and there could be no affirmative

direction by the Government to take action as recommended by CBI for removal

of the petitioners, as the materials collected by CBI on the basis of which an

opinion is formed to lay charge sheet against the petitioners have to be tested

before the court of law. Therefore, even if any such direction has been given by

the Government, as recorded in the impugned orders, the only inference that

could be drawn from the said direction of the Government is that the appointing

authorities were to follow the service rules and take action against the

petitioners/employees and not merely remove the petitioners by relying on the

recommendation of the CBI.

43. In the present case, it is borne out by record and not disputed by the

respondents that the removal of the petitioners from service was without

conduct of any disciplinary proceedings. Though the learned Advocate General

submitted that the Commission could cancel the selection and allotment and

invalidate the OMR answer sheets of the petitioners, however, the said

31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

contention has been rejected by this Court supra pointing out that such action

has to await the decision of the criminal court.

44. However, the aforesaid direction would in no way preclude the

appointing authorities to take action by way of disciplinary proceedings against

the petitioners under the relevant service rules for any alleged delinquencies,

which could be proved at the time of the enquiry that is taken against the

petitioners, as the petitioners are full-time employees in public service and all

acts performed by them are accountable. Therefore, the appointing authorities,

if find fit, take action disciplinary action against the petitioners by following the

provisions of the relevant service rules governing the conduct of the Government

servant/petitioners herein and conduct an enquiry and action, if any, could only

be taken on the basis of the outcome of the enquiry and not without any enquiry,

as it would be nothing but violation of principles of natural justice.

45. In the present case, the respective appointing authorities, on the basis

of the recommendations of CBI and on the basis of the directions of the

Government, without following the procedure contemplated under the service

32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

rules, have removed the petitioners from service, which is grossly perverse,

illegal, arbitrary and impermissible, which cannot be allowed to continue.

46. Further, it is to be pointed out that even at the time when the

petitioners were under suspension, their prolonged suspension was deprecated

by this Court by pointing out that certain other persons, who were also placed

under suspension, their suspension was revoked, including that of the officials of

the Commission who conducted the examination in the particular centre and

carried the papers. The allegation against the petitioners in the present case is

that they connived with the officials of the Commission in committing the

malpractice. When the officials of the Commission who were suspended on

allegations have subsequently been reinstated, keeping the petitioners under

suspension, without resorting to any disciplinary proceedings, would be very

much against the service rules and only in that backdrop, in the earlier round of

litigation, this Court had directed their reinstatement, but curiously, without

taking cue from the order passed by this Court, the appointing authorities have

removed the petitioners from service without resorting to the procedure

contemplated under the service rules. Therefore, the act of the appointing

authorities in throwing the service rules to the wind by not following it while

33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

deciding the case of the petitioners and removing them from service without

following the due process of law and against the principles of natural justice

definitely warrants interference with such orders, as the said orders not only

suffers the vice of perversity, illegality and infirmity, but also is against the

principles of natural justice and the provisions of the relevant service rules

governing the service of the petitioners. Therefore, the said impugned orders

deserve to be interfered with and if at all the appointing authorities deems it fit

and proper to take action against the respective petitioners, the course open to

them is to adhere to the provisions of the service rules and initiate action against

the respective petitioners.

47. Further, it is borne out by record that charge sheet has already been

filed before the Court, though it is not clear whether cognizance has been taken

of the same by the concerned Court. In such view of the matter, considering the

fact that the allegations made against the petitioner are grave in nature and that

they are holding public employment and considering the fact that the concerned

Court is before which the charge sheet is filed is not a party before this Court, this

Court is inclined to issue a direction to the concerned Court to expedite taking

cognizance of the offence and completing the trial as expeditiously as possible.

34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

48. For the reasons aforesaid, all the writ petitions are allowed with the

following directions :-

i)The respective impugned orders passed by the

Commission cancelling the provisional selection and

allotment and invalidating the OMR answer sheet of the

petitioners are set aside;

ii)The impugned orders passed by the respective appointing

authorities removing the respective petitioners from

service are also set aside holding that the said orders are

passed without following the service rules and in violation

of principles of natural justice;

iii)The respective appointing authorities are directed to

reinstate the petitioners in service forthwith and upon

such reinstatement, if so advised, the respective

appointing authorities are at liberty to initiate disciplinary

action against the respective petitioners for the

delinquency, alleged to have been committed by the

petitioners and proceed against the respective petitioners

in accordance with the relevant service rules governing

the petitioners;

iv)If disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated

against any of the petitioners, then the appointing

authorities shall take steps to conclude the disciplinary

proceedings initiated as expeditiously as possible in

35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

accordance with the relevant service rules governing the

said petitioners;

v)The Commission is at liberty to proceed against the

petitioners subject to the outcome of the criminal trial;

vi)Upon cognizance being taken of the charge sheet by the

concerned Court, the trial court is directed to proceed

with the said trial and complete the same as expeditiously

as possible and the petitioners herein are directed to

cooperate with the trial court for completion of the trial

as expeditiously as possible;

vii)The CBI is directed to place a copy of this order before the

concerned trial court before which the charge sheet is

pending cognizance so as to enable the concerned Court

to proceed forthwith with the matter in accordance with

law;

viii)Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

05.02.2026

Index : Yes / No

GLN

Note to Registry :

Registry is directed to incorporate all the cause title

along with the prayer in the drafted order while issuing

order copy to the parties.

36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

To

1.The Secretary

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Road

VOC Nagar, Chennai 600 003.

2.The Superintendent of Police

Central Bureau of Investigation

Anti Corruption Branch, Chennai.

37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

____________

W.P. No.2889/2025, etc.

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

GLN

PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN

W.P. NOS.2889 OF 2025, etc. Batch

Pronounced on

05.02.2026

38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis