2026 INSC 645

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 1 of 25

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(@ SLP (C) NO.7906 OF 2024)

S. SENTHIL KUMARAN BOSE APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU RESPONDENTS

AND OTHERS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026

(@ SLP (C) NOS.12856-57 OF 2024)

N. VAITHI AND OTHERS APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE SECRETARY, THE TAMIL NADU RESPONDENTS

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND

OTHERS

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(@ SLP (C) NO.7940 OF 2024)

M. MOHAMMED ADHIL APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU RESPONDENTS

AND OTHERS

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 2 of 25

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(@ SLP (C) NO.12475 OF 2024)

S. DINESH KUMAR APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE RESPONDENTS

COMMISSION AND OTHERS

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(@ SLP (C) NO.12474 OF 2024)

G. RAMKUMAR APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE RESPONDENTS

COMMISSION AND OTHERS

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(@ SLP (C) NO.12472 OF 2024)

P. KARTHIC AND OTHERS APPELLANTS

VERSUS

TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE RESPONDENTS

COMMISSION AND OTHERS

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 3 of 25

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(@ SLP (C) NO.12855 OF 2024)

J. SARANYA AND OTHERS APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE RESPONDENTS

COMMISSION AND OTHERS

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(@ SLP (C) NO.20487 OF 2024)

U. OMEZHILAN AND OTHERS APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE RESPONDENTS

COMMISSION AND OTHERS

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026

(@ SLP (C) NOS.8880-81 OF 2026)

THE TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE APPELLANTS

COMMISSION AND OTHERS

VERSUS

P. SATHEESH PRABU AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 4 of 25

J U D G M E N T

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR , J

1. Leave granted.

2. Applications for impleadment are allowed.

3. Recruitment on 113 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector-Grade

II by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

1 pursuant to

Notification dated 14.02.2018 has been embroiled in litigation. The

Madras High Court by its impugned judgment having directed a

fresh exercise to be undertaken by the official respondents,

aggrieved candidates and the TNPSC have come up in appeal.

4. By Notification No.3/2018 dated 14.02.2018 issued by the

TNPSC, 113 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector-Grade II were sought

to be filled through direct recruitment. The recruitment was

undertaken by the Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Services.

The selection was to be undertaken in three stages. Firstly, a

written examination of all candidates was to be conducted.

Thereafter, verification of their certificates and documents was to

be done followed by oral interview of the candidates. Initially the

TNPSC received 2176 applications from interested candidates.

After initial screening, 1328 candidates were permitted to appear

1

For short, ‘the TNPSC’

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 5 of 25

in the written examination. 33 candidates passed in the written

examination. A list to that effect was accordingly published on

15.07.2019. One of the candidates indicated his disinclination to

participate in the further process of recruitment. Accordingly, 32

candidates came to be provisionally selected and on 04.11.2019

appointment orders were issued to them. The selection of the said

32 candidates for interview was the subject matter of challenge in

various writ petitions before the Madras High Court. By common

judgment dated 24.01.2020, a learned Single Judge set aside the

appointment of the 32 candidates. A fresh verification of the

workshop experience certificates of all 1328 candidates was

directed to be undertaken. It was clarified that the experience of

one year as required would be satisfied if a candidate had worked

for at least 240 days in a given year. Consequently, the list of 32

candidates that had been published earlier was effaced.

5. The parties aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment preferred

writ appeals before the Division Bench. After hearing the

concerned parties, the Division Bench partly allowed the writ

appeals and upheld all the directions issued by the learned Single

Judge except Direction No.44(g). A verification of work experience

certificates, validity of driving license and driving experience

certificates as per Clause 10 of the advertisement was directed to

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 6 of 25

be carried out. A list of candidates in the ratio of 1:2 was to be

drawn after which the candidates were to undergo an oral test.

This order passed by the Division Bench was challenged

before this Court in K. Ilavarasan and others Vs. R. Vijiyaraj and

others

2. The said proceedings, however, were dismissed on

19.01.2021.

6. The process of selection was again undertaken and on the

basis of marks obtained in the written examination, a list of 226

candidates was published by the TNPSC on 28.04.2021 and they

were called for oral test. Being aggrieved by the said list, aggrieved

candidates again approached the High Court by filing separate writ

petitions. A learned Single Judge decided the said writ petitions

vide common order dated 10.02.2023. Various issues that arose

for consideration were divided into XI batches alongwith other

miscellaneous issues. In conclusion, the learned Single Judge

directed the TNPSC to complete the selection process and publish

the final selection list at the earliest.

7. The parties aggrieved by this adjudication preferred writ

appeals before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment, the

Division Bench found that in various Government Orders, there

2

SLP (C) No. 13571 of 2020

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 7 of 25

was no stipulation for renewal of approval for operating the

workshops. It therefore directed the entire process of recruitment

to be re-done after verifying the experience of the candidates in

respect of petrol and diesel fitted engines. The Division Bench

while disposing of the writ appeals issued various directions so

that the process of recruitment would be completed within a short

time. It directed the Director/Commissioner of the Transport

Department to take a decision regarding the effect of retrospective

renewal or refusal of such retrospective renewal to all the

workshops and to communicate the same to the TNPSC within four

weeks from the date of the judgment. Depending on the decision

of the State Government with regard to renewal of the workshops,

the TNPSC was directed to publish the select list within a period of

two weeks and inform the concerned candidates accordingly. The

driving license of candidates were also to be verified within

specified period. The entire selection process was directed to be

completed within a period of twelve weeks from receiving a copy of

the judgment.

8. Before this Court various aggrieved parties have challenged

the judgment of the Division Bench. SLP (C) No.7906 of 2024 (S.

Senthil Kumaran Bose Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others) has

been preferred by a candidate claiming that he had gained the

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 8 of 25

requisite work experience from a Government approved workshop.

He having found place is the initial select list of 33 candidates, he

ought to have been included in the selection list dated 28.04.2021

as the conditions stipulated in Clause 6(B) of the Notification dated

14.02.2018 had been satisfied. SLP (C) Nos.12856-57 of 2024 (N.

Vaithi and others Vs. The Secretary, The Tamil Nadu Public Service

Commission and others) and SLP (C) No.7940 of 2024 (M.

Mohammed Adhil Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others) have

been filed by candidates who are similarly placed as the candidate

in SLP (C) No.7906 of 2024. SLP (C) No.12475 of 2024 (S. Dinesh

Kumar Vs. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and others),

SLP (C) No.12474 of 2024 (G. Ramkumar Vs. The Tamil Nadu Public

Service Commission and others), SLP (C) No.12472 of 2024 (P.

Karthic and others Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and

others), SLP (C) No.12855 of 2024 (J. Saranya and others Vs. The

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and others) and SLP (C)

No.20487 of 2024 (U. Omezhilan and others Vs. The Tamil Nadu

Public Service Commission and others) have been preferred by

candidates who were included in the select list dated 28.04.2021

comprising of 226 candidates. They are aggrieved by the direction

to undertake the entire selection process afresh. SLP (C) Nos.8880-

81 of 2026 (The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and others

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 9 of 25

Vs. P. Satheesh Prabu and others) has been preferred by the TNPSC

as it is aggrieved by the direction to disclose the marks secured by

candidates who were not in the zone of consideration.

I. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No.7906 of 2024, SLP

(C) Nos.12856-57 of 2024 and SLP (C) No. 7940 of 2024

9. The appellants in this batch of appeals are candidates whose

names were reflected in the list of 33 candidates that had been

initially published by the TNPSC on 15.07.2019. Since one

amongst the said candidates did not participate further in the

selection process, the list was reduced to 32 candidates. This list

was the subject matter of challenge at the instance of those

candidates whose names did not figure in the list published on

15.07.2019. The learned Single Judge in the first round of

litigation set aside the entire list of 32 candidates and a fresh

selection process was directed to be undergone. In the subsequent

list published on 28.04.2021, 226 candidates were called for oral

test. The names of the present appellants did not find place in the

said list. Being aggrieved, the appellants challenged the said list

dated 28.04.2021 by filing separate writ petitions. The appellants

having failed to get any relief before the learned Single Judge

pursuant to judgment dated 10.02.2023 preferred writ appeals

wherein the selection process was directed to be completed afresh

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 10 of 25

after considering the aspect of renewal of approvals granted to

various workshops. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the

Division Bench dated 22.12.2023, the appellants have come up in

appeal.

10. We have heard the learned Senior Advocates for the

appellants, the official respondents and contesting candidates as

well as the impleaded candidates. The primary grievance of the

appellants is that in view of their placement in the initial list of 33

candidates published on 15.07.2019, their names could not have

been excluded from the subsequent list of 226 candidates

published on 28.04.2021. As per the impugned judgment, the

aspect of experience as required under Clause 6(B) of the

Notification was stated to be not satisfied by the appellants. It is to

be seen that as per the impugned judgment, the

Director/Commissioner of Transport was directed to take a

decision regarding grant of retrospective renewal to all concerned

workshops. In this regard, we may refer to the counter affidavit

that has been filed on behalf of the Motor Vehicles Maintenance

Department

3 of the State of Tamil Nadu by its Director dated

09.01.2025. It has been stated therein that pursuant to the

3

For short, ‘MVMD’

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 11 of 25

direction issued in paragraph 88(a) of the impugned judgment,

retrospective approval had been granted to all the approved

workshops and the MVMD had submitted the workshop

experience of all the 1328 candidates to the TNPSC. As per that

report, the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.7906

of 2024 initially did not satisfy the criteria of workshop experience.

However, with the grant of retrospective approval to all approved

workshops, a re-verification of the workshop experience certificate

was undertaken and in paragraph 43 of the counter affidavit, it

has been stated that the appellant now had more than one year of

workshop experience.

In Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.12856-12857 of

2024, similar counter affidavit has been filed by the Director,

MVMD. In paragraph 48 thereof, it has been stated that after re-

verification of the workshop experience certificates of all the

appellants, it was found that they possessed workshop experience

of more than one year. Similar is the case in SLP (C) No.7940 of

2024. In paragraph 48 of the counter affidavit filed by the Director,

MVMD, it is stated that the appellant had more than one year of

experience. A consolidated chart filed alongwith the counter

affidavits referred to above is reproduced for reference. The same

reads as under:

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 12 of 25

Workshop experience gained by the Petitioner (As per orders passed by the Hon’ble Division

Bench of Madras High Court in W.A. 590 of 2023)

Name of

the

Candidate

&

ID No.

Name of the

Workshop &

Category

Period of

experience

claimed by

the

candidate

MVMD

Approval

period

Whether

the

experience

was within

the

approval

Period

Whether the

candidate

had worked

in the

workshop for

240 days as

per

Notification

6(B)

Whether

the

candidate

worked in

vehicles

fitted with

both

petrol and

diesel

engine.

Remarks

whether the

candidate

fulfilled all

the norms

for the

workshop

experience

as per the

notification

6(B)

Consideration

Period due to

Retrospective

Effect

Total

Period of

Experience

of

Candidate

Whichever

is

Applicable

Remarks

S. Senthil

kumaran

Bose

ID No.1360

Dharmaraj

Auto

Carriage

Thanjavur

Road

MVMD

Approved

Private

Workshop

17.10.2014

to

08.12.2015

01.04.2013

to

31.03.2015

01.04.2015

to

31.03.2017

17.10.2014

to

31.03.2015

(5 Months

15 Days)

&

01.07.2015

To

08.12.2015

(5 Months 8

Days)

YES

YES

Originally

not

Satisfied.

Satisfied the

Norms if

Retrospectiv

e effect is

given as per

Division

Bench order.

01.04.2015

to

30.06.2015

(3 Months)

1 year,

1month,

21 days

Had more

than one

year

workshop

experience

N. Vaithi

ID No.1104

Sri

Ramakrishn

a

Automobile

Workshop

Rajapalayam

MVMD

Approved

Private

Workshop

07.09.2009

to

31.03.2011

01.04.2009

to

31.03.2011

07.09.2009

to

31.12.2010

(1 year 3

months 24

days)

YES

YES

Satisfied the

Norms with

available

experience

Does not arise

1 year,

3 months,

24 days

Had more

than one

year

workshop

experience

B. Prasanna

Raja

ID No.1367

K.

Arumugam

Auto

Workshop,

Sivakasi,

Virudhunag

ar.

MVMD

Approved

Private

Workshop

01.01.2010

to

31.03.2011

01.04.2009

to

31.03.2011

01.01.2010

to

31.03.2011

(1 Year

3 months)

YES

YES

Satisfied the

Norms with

available

experience

Does not arise

1 year,

3 months

Had more

than one

year

workshop

experience

(As per the

orders

passed by

the

Hon’ble

Single

Judge to

include

the

petitioner’

s name in

the

selection

list to

TNPSC)

S. Vinish

ID No.729

ABT

Industries,

Madurai.

MVMD

Approved

Private

Workshop

05.05.2007

to

28.02.2015

01.04.2009

to

31.03.2011

01.04.2009

to

30.05.2010

(1 Year

1 Month

30 Days)

YES

YES

Satisfied the

Norms with

available

experience

Does not arise

1 year,

1 month,

30 days

Had more

than one

year

workshop

experience

S. Abdul

Munaf

ID No.865

N.A.

Rahamathul

la

Automobile

Works,

Kovilpatti.

MVMD

Approved

Private

Workshop

01.04.2015

to

31.03.2016

01.04.2015

to

31.03.2017

As per the

documents

produced by

the counsel

for the

petitioners

in the writ

petition case

the

petitioner

had one

year

experience.

YES

YES

Satisfied the

Norms with

available

experience

Does not arise

01.04.2015

to

31.03.2016

(1 Year)

Had more

than one

year

workshop

experience

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 13 of 25

N.

Venkatrama

n

ID No.1091

Sri

Ramakrishn

a

Automobile

Workshop,

Rajapalayam

MVMD

Approved

Private

Workshop

01.10.2009

to

31.03.2011

01.04.2009

to

31.03.2011

01.10.2009

to

31.12.2010

(1 Year

3 Months)

YES

YES

Satisfied the

Norms with

available

experience

Does not arise

1 year,

3 months

Had more

than one

year

workshop

experience

M.

Mohamed

Adhil

ID No.909

Dharmaraj

Auto

Carriage,

Thiruvarur

MVMD

Approved

Private

Workshop

15.09.2014

to

31.10.2015

01.04.2013

to

31.03.2015

01.04.2015

to

31.03.2017

15.09.2014

to

31.03.2015

6 Months 16

Days

01.07.2015

to

31.10.2015

4 Months

YES

YES

Originally

not

Satisfied.

Satisfied the

Norms if

Retrospectiv

e effect is

given as per

Division

Bench order

01.04.2015

to

30.06.2015

3 Months

1 year,

1 month,

16 days

Had more

than one

year

workshop

experience

11. It is, thus, clear from the aforesaid that the MVMD after

undertaking the exercise of re-verification has submitted its report

to the TNPSC on 10.04.2024. It is seen from the record that this

Court while issuing notice in the present proceedings on

17.05.2024 had stayed the operation of the impugned judgment

insofar as it is related to paragraph 88(a). Thus, before the passing

of the interim order on 17.05.2024, the direction contained in

paragraph 88(a) was carried out and the report of re-verification of

the workshop experience certificates was sent to the TNPSC on

10.04.2024. The further exercise as required to be carried out in

terms of paragraph 88(b) and onwards was not carried out.

12. The manner in which the directions contained in paragraph

88(a) were carried out by the Transport Department has been

placed on record. The relevant extracts from the affidavit filed by

the Director, MVMD dated 09.01.2025 in SLP (C) No.7906 of 2024

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 14 of 25

reads as under:

“42. As per the common order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench

of Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.590 of 2023 retrospective

approval has been granted to all the approved workshops and

relatively the workshop experience report of all the 1328 candidates

had been submitted to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission…..

43. Hence it is submitted that as per the report of the reverification

of workshop experience certificate submitted by the answering

Respondent to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission vide office

letter dated 10.04.2024 as per the orders passed by the Hon'ble

Division Bench of Madras High Court now the petitioner had more

than one year workshop experience.

44. It is submitted that in compliance with the directions of the

Hon'ble Division Bench, MVMD again re -verified the Workshop

Experience of the candidates. The Inspection Officers also

approached the respective TNSTC Officials for re-verification. The Re-

Verification Report was delayed since the relevant particulars were

not furnished by TNSTC Officials within the stipulated time. Hence,

it was not possible to complete the work within the four weeks period

as ordered by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Hence, MV MD filed

C.M.P.No.8147/2024 seeking six more weeks' time to complete the

Work. MVMD had also filed C.M.P.No . 7895/2024 seeking

clarifications of para 88(a). The said CMPs have been rendered

infructuous in view of the present Special Leave Petition filed by the

Petitioner herein.

45. It is submitted that most of the Workshops who had Approval

before 2006, do not have the necessary details regarding the renewal

of Factory License and Fire Insurance for the relevant periods, at this

distance, due to efflux of time, while MVMD did the re-verification

pursuant to the Orders of the Hon'ble Writ Court. It is not feasible for

MVMD to deny the Approval already granted to the concerned

Workshops at that relevant period, now, for want of records of

renewal of Fire Insurance and Factory Licence and fulfilment of

requirements by the concerned workshop, for those periods. At that

point of time, Approval had been issued for the whole two years block

period. In compliance of the Order of the Hon'ble Division Bench and

based on the reverification done after die Common Order of the

Hon'ble Division Bench, MVMD had submitted their Report to TNPSC

vide R.C.No.B4/l064/2020, dated 10.04.2024, certifying that 794

Candidates [(i) Experience in major approved workshop of MVMD =

702; (ii) Experience in TNSTC= 30; (iii) Experience in Government 62]

from out of 1328 Candidates are eligible with One Year Workshop

Experience as per TNPSC's Notification.”

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 15 of 25

There is no further challenge to the aforesaid re-verification

report communicated by the MVMD to the TNPSC on 10.04.2024.

It is, thus, clear that the aspect of retrospective renewal having

been worked out, the recruitment process now ought to be taken

to its logical end.

13. In the light of the fact that the workshop experience

certificates submitted by the appellants have been duly verified as

well as re-verified by the MVMD and it has been stated in its

counter affidavits that the workshop experience of each appellant

exceeds one year in an approved workshop, the appellants would

be entitled to have their names considered for inclusion in the

select list to be published by the TNPSC as directed in paragraph

88(b) of the impugned judgment. The other directions issued in

paragraph 88 pertain to the manner in which the selection process

has to be taken further and completed. The appellants would be

required to compete with all other eligible and similarly placed

candidates and seek their selection accordingly. Considering the

fact that the recruitment exercise commenced pursuant to

Notification No.03/2018 dated 14.02.2018 and a period of more

than six years has since elapsed, the TNPSC shall complete the

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 16 of 25

entire exercise at the earliest and in accordance with the time

schedule stipulated by the High Court.

The Civil Appeals are accordingly disposed of. Pending

interlocutory applications are also disposed of.

II. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No.12475 of 2024,

SLP (C) No.12474 of 2024, SLP (C) No.12472 of 2024, SLP (C)

No.12855 of 2024 and SLP (C) No.20487 of 2024

14. The appellants herein are candidates whose names were

included in the list dated 28.04.2021 comprising of 226

candidates. By virtue of the impugned judgment of the Division

Bench, a direction has been issued to undertake a fresh exercise

of recruitment after complying with the directions in the matter of

grant of renewal to all the workshops from where the candidates

had got their work experience. It was urged by the learned Senior

Advocate on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal arising out of

SLP (C) No.12472 of 2024 that by virtue of the impugned

directions, the appellants were prejudiced as they would be

required to again undergo the process of selection notwithstanding

the fact that their names were included in the revised list of 226

candidates. By virtue of the impugned directions, the earlier

adjudication with regard to the same recruitment had been

nullified. The candidates whose names were included in the list

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 17 of 25

dated 28.04.2021 had also been called for oral test. Even the

exercise of verification of their experience certificates had been

scrupulously undertaken and there was no necessity whatsoever

to go into the issue of retrospective approval to the concerned

workshops. The recruitment having commenced pursuant to

Notification dated 14.02.2018, there was no justification in setting

aside the steps taken till the passing of the impugned judgment

and directing the entire process to be undertaken again. Reliance

was placed on the decisions in Ashok Kumar Yadav and others

Vs. State of Haryana and others

4, U.P. Public Services

Commission Vs. Subhash Chandra Dixit and others

5, Sunil

Kumar and others etc. Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission

and others etc.

6

and State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Atul

Kumar Dwivedi and others

7 and it was urged that the

recruitment process be directed to be completed pursuant to the

revised select list dated 28.04.2021.

15. The principal grievance raised by the appellants whose

names figure in the revised list dated 28.04.2021 is that it was not

necessary to direct the entire process to be undertaken afresh after

4

1985 INSC 137

5

2003 INSC 606

6

2015 INSC 770

7

2022 INSC 24

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 18 of 25

permitting the State Government to take a decision regarding grant

of/denial of retrospective renewal to the concerned workshops. In

the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has found that the

workshops that had issued the experience certificates initially had

the necessary approval. The dispute was with regard to the period

when their applications for renewal of approval were pending and

were being processed. It was further found that prior to 2012-13,

the Director had approved the workshops with retrospective effect.

No policy decision was brought on record by the State Government

to indicate permissibility of grant of approval with retrospective

effect prior to 2012-13 or that grant of approval with retrospective

effect was discontinued after 2012-13. The decision in this regard

was taken by the concerned Director at his discretion and this was

found to be arbitrary and discriminative. The Division Bench

further found that the concerned workshops were always shown

to be approved by the State Government and that even during the

period of eclipse, Government vehicles were being attended to by

such workshops. It noted that neither the candidates nor the

workshops had any control over the matter as well as the aspect

as to when the renewal certificates would b e issued by the

concerned authorities. This could not be a reason to deprive a

candidate of his right to seek employment based on experience

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 19 of 25

gained at such workshop, especially when he was not at fault.

Pertinently, it was also found that the grant of renewal with

retrospective effect had not been challenged by any party and the

approval continued to operate. It is for these reasons that the

Division Bench was of the view that the State Government ought

to take a conscious decision in the matter of grant of approval to

the workshops with retrospective effect, re-consider the rejection

of the applications of candidates on the ground that approval to

the said workshops was not in force when the experience was

gained and that such approval was subsequently granted. The

concern expressed by candidates placed like the appellants that

they would be required to undergo the ordeal of selection again

was also taken into consideration by observing that merit of the

candidates inter se would ensure the inclusion of the appellants in

the select list if they were meritorious.

16. We find all the reasons assigned by the Division Bench that

led to issuance of the direction in paragraph 88(a) of taking a

decision with regard to grant of renewal with retrospective effect

are cogent and in accordance with law. After finding that there was

no uniform policy in place with regard to the grant of renewal to

approval with retrospective effect, the decision taken by the

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 20 of 25

Director at his own level was found to be arbitrary. The candidates

who gained experience in such workshops which were shown to be

approved on the concerned website or workshops whose

applications for renewal were pending but were attending to

Government vehicles could not have been prejudiced. After finding

that the candidates were not at fault due to pendency of an

application for renewal of approval and in absence of a definite

policy in this matter, the direction to take a decision in the matter

of grant/denial of renewal with retrospective effect was issued to

the State Government.

17. In our view, this direction results in providing a level playing

field to all the candidates so that they are placed at par with each

other. This would also result in more meritorious candidates being

available for selection from a larger pool which would also be in

public interest. Once it is found that a class of candidates had been

deprived of proper participation in the selection process for no fault

of theirs, the direction to undertake fresh process of recruitment

does not deserve to be interfered with, especially when those

candidates who were placed in the revised select list dated

28.04.2021 are also permitted to participate in the process of

selection. No vested right could be claimed merely by placement in

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 21 of 25

the revised select list, especially when the right of participation in

the fresh selection process was not being taken away. We,

therefore, do not find any justifiable legal ground to hold the

conclusions recorded by the Division Bench that led to passing of

the direction in paragraph 88(a) of the impugned judgment liable

to be interfered with.

The Civil Appeals are accordingly disposed of. Pending

interlocutory applications are also disposed of.

III. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8880-81 of 2026

18. The TNPSC is aggrieved by the directions issued by the

Division Bench of the High Court in its common judgment dated

22.12.2023 in Writ Appeal No.590/2023 and connected appeals,

especially the direction to reveal the marks of candidates who do

not come within the zone of consideration in the recruitment

process conducted by it pursuant to Notification No.03/2018. By

that Notification dated 14.02.2018, 113 vacancies on the post of

Motor Vehicle Inspector-Grade II in the Tamil Nadu Transport

Subordinate Services were sought to be filled in through direct

recruitment.

19. The recruitment process conducted by the TNPSC faced legal

challenges that resulted in two rounds of litigations. In the second

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 22 of 25

round of litigation that was initiated pursuant to publication of list

of 226 candidates on 28.04.2021, the TNPSC was concerned with

candidates claiming benefit under the ‘Persons Studied in Tamil

Medium’

8 quota. While the candidates relied upon the certificate

issued by the Head of the Institution where the candidates had

pursued their education in Tamil medium, according to the TNPSC

it had the power to independently ascertain whether the concerned

Institution was applying Tamil as the medium. In that regard, the

learned Single Judge by his common judgment dated 10.02.2023

held that the Head of the Institution having issued a certificate to

the effect that the concerned candidate had undertaken education

in Tamil medium, such certificate had to be necessarily acted

upon. The candidates who had relied upon such certificates were

held eligible to have their names included in the PSTM quota.

In the writ appeals filed before the Division Bench, this

finding of the learned Single Judge was upheld in paragraph 80 of

the common judgment. It was further observed that there was no

requirement in the Notification dated 14.02.2018 to get any letter

from the Directorate of Technical Education in that regard.

20. The TNPSC is also aggrieved by the direction to disclose the

8

For short, ‘PSTM’

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 23 of 25

marks of candidates who did not fall within the zone of

consideration. According to it, in view of the judgment of this Court

in Joint Directors and Central Public Information Officer and

another Vs. T.R. Rajesh

9, such a direction to disclose the marks

of candidates could not have been issued. The Division Bench in

paragraph 83 of the impugned judgment held that since marks of

certain candidates had already been declared and made public, it

was in public interest that the marks of candidates who did not

come within the zone of consideration be also communicated to

them individually. It was clarified that such candidates would not

be entitled to a copy of their answer sheets. While disposing the

writ appeals, a direction to communicate the marks of candidates

who did not fall within the zone of consideration was issued in

paragraph 88(f). The TNPSC sought review of the said judgment

dated 22.12.2023 as regards the findings in paragraphs 80, 83,

88(f) and 89. The Review Application, however, was rejected.

21. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsel

for the parties and we have perused the documents on record.

Having given due consideration to the rival submissions, we do not

find any reason to take a different view from that taken by the

9

2018 INSC 179

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 24 of 25

Division Bench with regard to the PSTM quota as well as the

direction to communicate the marks of candidates not falling

within the zone of consideration.

Insofar as the PSTM quota is concerned, the learned Single

Judge considered the said issue in Batch VI vide paragraphs 53 to

59. The certificate issued by the Head of the Institution where a

candidate underwent the diploma course in Tamil medium was

found to be sufficient, especially when Notification No.03/2018 did

not prescribe any further requirement. The Division Bench also

found the submission of such certificate from the Head of the

Institution to be sufficient. The exams having been written by the

candidates in Tamil language, the Division Bench did not accept

the stand of the TNPSC that the Directorate of Technical Education

also ought to look into this aspect. We are in agreement with what

has been held by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the

Division Bench in this regard.

22. Insofar as the direction to reveal the marks of candidates not

falling within the zone of consideration is concerned, the Division

Bench relied upon Joint Directors and Central Public Information

Office and another (supra) to hold that it was in public interest that

such marks be disclosed. In the aforesaid decision, this Court held

that if in a given case, the Court finds that public interest requires

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.7906 of 2024 & other connected matters Page 25 of 25

furnishing of such information, it is entitled to issue such

direction. The Division Bench was of the view that the process of

recruitment having been engaged in litigation for more than five

years, it was in public interest that the marks of candidates be

revealed so as to put a quietus to the said aspect. It further clarified

in paragraphs 83 and 88(f) that the candidates would not be

entitled to a copy of their answer sheets. We do not find any reason

whatsoever to take a different view of the matter. All relevant

aspects having been taken into consideration and the Court on

being satisfied that public interest required disclosure of marks of

the candidates individually, we do not find any reason to interfere

in that regard.

23. Consequently, these Civil Appeals are also disposed of.

Pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of.

..………………………..J.

[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]

.…..………………………..J.

[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI,

JUNE 15, 2026.