Retrospective Renewal of Workshop Approvals Validates Candidate Experience in Competitive Selection Processes

The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) issued Notification No. 03/2018 to recruit 113 Motor Vehicle Inspectors (Grade II).

An initial list of 33 candidates was set aside by the High Court in 2020 because of disputes over workshop experience certificates; a fresh verification was ordered.

In 2021, a new list of 226 candidates was published, which was again challenged.

The Division Bench of the Madras High Court subsequently directed a fresh recruitment exercise, ordering the State to decide on the "retrospective renewal" of workshop approvals, as many candidates had gained experience during periods when workshop licenses were pending renewal.

Appellants included original selectees seeking to protect their status and the TNPSC, which challenged directions regarding the ‘Persons Studied in Tamil Medium’ (PSTM) quota and the disclosure of marks.

1. Whether the State’s lack of a uniform policy on the retrospective renewal of workshop approvals rendered the disqualification of candidates arbitrary.

2. Whether the TNPSC is bound to accept PSTM certificates issued by the Head of the Institution without independent verification from the Directorate of Technical Education.

3. Whether the court can direct the disclosure of marks for candidates falling outside the zone of consideration in the interest of transparency.

The Court applied the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution regarding non-arbitrariness and the "level playing field" in public employment.

Clause 6(B) of the Recruitment Notification regarding workshop experience and the statutory preference for 'Persons Studied in Tamil Medium' (PSTM).

Precedent from Joint Directors and Central Public Information Officer v. T.R. Rajesh establishes that while individual marks are private, they may be disclosed if "public interest" outweighs the privacy of the information.

The Court reasoned that candidates should not be penalized for administrative delays in renewing workshop approvals, especially when the workshops continued to service Government vehicles during the "eclipse" period.

The Court found the Director's discretionary power to grant retrospective approval to some and not others was arbitrary.

Regarding the PSTM quota, the Court held that since the notification did not stipulate verification by the Directorate of Technical Education, a certificate from the Head of the Institution was sufficient evidence of the medium of instruction.

On the issue of disclosing marks, the Court determined that after six years of litigation, public interest necessitated transparency to provide a "quietus" to the recruitment process, provided answer sheets were not shared.

Retrospective renewal of workshop approvals must be applied uniformly to ensure a level playing field.

PSTM certificates from Heads of Institutions are valid and sufficient.

The TNPSC must disclose the marks of unsuccessful candidates to them individually.

All appeals were disposed of with directions to the TNPSC to finalize the selection list within the stipulated time schedule.