Madras High Court orders fresh PG Assistant selection list, directs probe into TRB officials for ignoring Supreme Court reservation ruling

The Teachers Recruitment Board (“TRB”) issued Notification No. 01/2021 for recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Economics).

The candidates participated in the selection process and were included in the first provisional selection list published on 14 September 2022. Their names were subsequently omitted from the second provisional selection list published on 13 October 2022.

The affected candidates challenged the second list through writ petitions, while the TRB filed intra-court appeals against orders allowing similar challenges.

Whether the TRB correctly interpreted and applied Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 while preparing the second provisional selection list for PG Assistants (Economics).

Whether the second provisional selection list dated 13 October 2022, which deleted candidates included in the first list dated 14 September 2022, was legally sustainable in view of the principles laid down in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shobana.

Whether the affected candidates were entitled to consideration and appointment pursuant to a fresh selection list prepared in accordance with the applicable law.

The Court applied Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, governing reservation and selection methodology.

It relied principally on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shobana, (2021) 4 SCC 686, which settled the principles governing implementation of Section 27(f), and on the Division Bench decision in J. Sheena v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, dated 27 February 2024, which followed and applied those principles in revising a selection list.

The TRB was required to give effect to the binding interpretation declared by the Supreme Court; an administrative authority could not disregard that interpretation merely because the recruitment process had commenced earlier.

The Court found that the candidates had been included in the first provisional list but were removed from the second list without the TRB applying the principles laid down in Shobana.

The TRB expressly admitted that Shobana had been applied only to another recruitment process and that the 13 October 2022 list had instead been prepared independently under Section 27(f).

The Court rejected the TRB’s contention that Sheena, being a later judgment, had no application. It held that the Shobana judgment was already binding and in force when the first and second lists were prepared on 14 September and 13 October 2022 respectively.

Accordingly, the second list was legally infirm because it failed to implement the governing Supreme Court interpretation of Section 27(f), resulting in the unjustified exclusion of candidates previously included in the selection process.

The entire exercise was ordered to be completed within six weeks from receipt of the judgment.

The Chairman of the TRB was also directed to conduct an enquiry to identify the officials responsible for failing to implement the Supreme Court’s decision and, if necessary, initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.