S Senthil Kumaran Bosev.State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Legal Analysis : S. Senthil Kumaran Bose v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 645

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari

Date of Decision: June 15, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 7906 of 2024, SLP (C) Nos. 12856-57 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 7940 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 12475 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 12474 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 12472 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 12855 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 20487 of 2024 and SLP (C) Nos. 8880-81 of 2026 against the common judgment dated 22.12.2023 of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 590 of 2023 and connected appeals.

Synopsis of the Judgment

Recruitment for 113 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector-Grade II by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) pursuant to Notification dated 14.02.2018 became embroiled in prolonged litigation spanning over six years. After multiple rounds of writ petitions and appeals, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court directed a fresh selection process, including verification of workshop experience certificates after granting retrospective approval to workshops, and also directed disclosure of marks of candidates not falling within the zone of consideration. Aggrieved candidates and the TNPSC appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals in three categories. For candidates who were initially in the first list of 33 but excluded later, the Court held that after re-verification by the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department (MVMD), they were found to possess the requisite one-year workshop experience and therefore their names must be considered in the fresh selection. For candidates who were in the revised list of 226 and opposed fresh selection, the Court upheld the High Court's direction, finding that a level playing field was necessary as many candidates had been deprived of proper participation due to arbitrary and discriminatory grant of retrospective approval to workshops. For the TNPSC's challenge regarding disclosure of marks and the PSTM (Persons Studied in Tamil Medium) quota, the Court affirmed the High Court's directions, holding that a certificate from the Head of the Institution was sufficient for PSTM quota, and that public interest required disclosure of marks to put a quietus to the litigation.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: S. Senthil Kumaran Bose v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (and connected matters)

Citation: 2026 INSC 645

Civil Appeal Nos.: Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7906 of 2024, SLP (C) Nos. 12856-57 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 7940 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 12475 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 12474 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 12472 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 12855 of 2024, SLP (C) No. 20487 of 2024 and SLP (C) Nos. 8880-81 of 2026

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari

Date of Decision: June 15, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Common judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 590 of 2023 and connected appeals, along with the judgment dated 10.02.2023 of the learned Single Judge and the earlier common judgment dated 24.01.2020.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Services Rules – Governing recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector-Grade II.

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment), Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts), Article 136 (special leave to appeal).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 – Principles governing selection process and fairness in recruitment.

U.P. Public Services Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit (2003) 12 SCC 701 – Relevance of selection process and merit.

Sunil Kumar v. Bihar Public Service Commission (2017) 16 SCC 347 – Recruitment process and rights of candidates.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi (2022) 14 SCC 712 – Fresh selection process and level playing field.

Joint Director & CPIO v. T.R. Rajesh (2016) 14 SCC 151 – Disclosure of marks of candidates not in zone of consideration; public interest exception.

3. Relevant Facts

The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) issued Notification No. 3/2018 dated 14.02.2018 for direct recruitment to 113 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector-Grade II in the Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Services. The selection process had three stages: written examination, certificate verification, and oral interview.

Initially, 2176 applications were received. After screening, 1328 candidates appeared for the written examination. Only 33 candidates passed. One candidate opted out, leaving 32 candidates. Appointment orders were issued to them on 04.11.2019.

The selection of these 32 candidates was challenged before the Madras High Court. A learned Single Judge, by common judgment dated 24.01.2020, set aside the appointments and directed fresh verification of workshop experience certificates of all 1328 candidates, clarifying that one year experience would be satisfied if a candidate worked for at least 240 days in a year. The list of 32 candidates was effaced.

Writ appeals were partly allowed by a Division Bench, which upheld most directions except one. The matter reached the Supreme Court in K. Ilavarasan v. R. Vijiyaraj, which dismissed the proceedings on 19.01.2021.

Thereafter, a list of 226 candidates was published on 28.04.2021, and they were called for oral test. Aggrieved candidates again approached the High Court. A learned Single Judge, by order dated 10.02.2023, directed TNPSC to complete the selection process.

Writ appeals were filed against this order. The Division Bench, by the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2023, found that there was no uniform policy regarding grant of renewal of approval to workshops with retrospective effect. The Director had been exercising discretion arbitrarily. The Court directed the State Government to take a decision regarding grant of retrospective renewal to all workshops, and then directed the entire recruitment process to be re-done after verifying the experience of candidates in respect of petrol and diesel fitted engines. It also directed disclosure of marks of candidates not in the zone of consideration and upheld the PSTM quota certificates issued by Heads of Institutions.

Aggrieved, multiple sets of appeals were filed before the Supreme Court.

During the pendency of these appeals, the MVMD, pursuant to the High Court's direction, granted retrospective approval to all workshops and submitted a re-verification report on 10.04.2024. The report found that many candidates, including the appellants in the first batch, now possessed more than one year of workshop experience.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1 (First batch of appeals – candidates excluded from revised list): Whether candidates whose names appeared in the initial list of 33 candidates published on 15.07.2019 but were excluded from the subsequent list of 226 candidates published on 28.04.2021 are entitled to have their names considered in the fresh selection process, especially after the MVMD's re-verification report found that they possessed the requisite workshop experience.

Issue No. 2 (Second batch of appeals – candidates in the revised list of 226): Whether the High Court was justified in directing a fresh selection process after granting retrospective approval to workshops, thereby setting aside the revised list of 226 candidates, and whether such direction violates any vested right of the candidates who were included in that list.

Issue No. 3 (Third batch of appeals – TNPSC's challenge regarding PSTM quota): Whether the certificate issued by the Head of the Institution certifying that a candidate studied in Tamil medium is sufficient for claiming benefit under the Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) quota, or whether further verification by the Directorate of Technical Education is required.

Issue No. 4 (Third batch – disclosure of marks): Whether the High Court could direct disclosure of marks of candidates who did not fall within the zone of consideration, in light of the judgment in Joint Director v. T.R. Rajesh, and whether public interest justified such disclosure.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Candidates who were initially in the first list of 33 but were excluded later are entitled to have their names considered in the fresh selection process, as the MVMD's re-verification report (pursuant to the High Court's direction) confirms that they now possess the requisite workshop experience

The Court examined the counter affidavit filed by the Director of the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department (MVMD) dated 09.01.2025. It noted that pursuant to the direction in paragraph 88(a) of the impugned judgment, retrospective approval had been granted to all approved workshops, and the MVMD had submitted a workshop experience report of all 1328 candidates to the TNPSC on 10.04.2024. The consolidated chart showed that the appellants in this batch (S. Senthil Kumaran Bose, N. Vaithi, M. Mohammed Adhil, and others) now had more than one year of workshop experience. There was no challenge to this re-verification report. Therefore, these candidates 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. However, they would have to compete with all other eligible candidates on merit. (Paras 9-13)

B. The direction to undertake a fresh selection process after granting retrospective approval to workshops is justified, as it provides a level playing field to all candidates and does not violate any vested right of candidates who were included in the revised list of 226

The Court upheld the reasoning of the Division Bench. It found that there was no uniform policy with regard to grant of renewal of approval to workshops with retrospective effect. The Director had been exercising discretion arbitrarily, leading to discrimination. The candidates who gained experience in workshops that were shown as approved on the website or whose renewal applications were pending were not at fault. The Court held that once it was found that a class of candidates had been deprived of proper participation for no fault of theirs, a fresh selection process was necessary. The candidates whose names were in the revised list of 226 were not being excluded; they were permitted to participate in the fresh process. No vested right could be claimed merely by placement in a select list, especially when the right to participate was not taken away. A larger pool of meritorious candidates would be in public interest. (Paras 14-17)

C. For the PSTM quota, a certificate from the Head of the Institution certifying that a candidate studied in Tamil medium is sufficient; no further verification by the Directorate of Technical Education is required

The Court noted that Notification No. 03/2018 did not prescribe any further requirement beyond the certificate from the Head of the Institution. The learned Single Judge had correctly held that such a certificate had to be acted upon. The Division Bench affirmed this finding. The exams were written by the candidates in Tamil language. The TNPSC's stand that the Directorate of Technical Education ought to verify this aspect was not supported by the Notification. Therefore, no interference was warranted. (Paras 21-22)

D. Disclosure of marks of candidates not falling within the zone of consideration is permissible in public interest, especially when the recruitment process has been embroiled in prolonged litigation

The Court relied on the exception carved out in Joint Director v. T.R. Rajesh, which held that if in a given case the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of such information, it is entitled to issue such a direction. The Division Bench found that the recruitment process had been engaged in litigation for more than five years, and disclosure of marks would put a quietus to the aspect. It was clarified that candidates would not be entitled to a copy of their answer sheets. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with this direction. (Paras 22-23)

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

First, the Court reiterates that in recruitment processes, where a class of candidates has been deprived of proper participation for no fault of theirs due to arbitrary or discriminatory administrative practices (such as inconsistent grant of retrospective approval to workshops), the appropriate remedy is to direct a fresh selection process after curing the defect, rather than excluding such candidates or perpetuating the original flawed selection.

Second, the Court clarifies that no vested right accrues to a candidate merely by placement in a select list, especially when the selection process itself is under challenge and the defect is found at the level of eligibility criteria applied to a class of candidates. As long as all candidates are permitted to participate in the fresh process, there is no violation of any right.

Third, the Court reaffirms the exception to the general rule against disclosure of marks of candidates not in the zone of consideration: where the recruitment process has been subject to prolonged litigation and public interest requires transparency to put an end to disputes, courts may direct disclosure of marks to individual candidates, though not of answer sheets.

Fourth, the Court emphasizes that where a recruitment notification does not prescribe a specific procedure for verification of a claim (such as PSTM quota), the certificate issued by the competent authority (Head of Institution) is sufficient, and the recruiting body cannot impose additional requirements not found in the notification.

7. Court's Examination and Analysis of Concepts

The Court first segregated the appeals into three categories. For the first category (candidates excluded from the revised list), it examined the MVMD's counter affidavit and the re-verification report submitted on 10.04.2024. It noted that pursuant to the High Court's direction, retrospective approval had been granted to all workshops, and the MVMD had re-verified the workshop experience of all 1328 candidates. The consolidated chart clearly indicated that the appellants now possessed more than one year of experience. Since there was no challenge to this report, the Court held that these candidates' names must be considered in the fresh selection process. However, the Court made it clear that they would have to compete on merit with all other eligible candidates.

For the second category (candidates in the revised list of 226 who opposed fresh selection), the Court analysed the Division Bench's reasoning. The Division Bench had found that prior to 2012-13, the Director had approved workshops with retrospective effect, but no uniform policy existed thereafter. The Director exercised discretion arbitrarily, leading to discrimination. Moreover, the workshops were always shown as approved on the website, and even during the period when renewal applications were pending, Government vehicles were being attended to by such workshops. Neither the candidates nor the workshops had any control over the delay in issuance of renewal certificates. The Court held that in such circumstances, a fresh selection process was the only fair solution. The candidates in the revised list were not being deprived of any right; they were free to participate again. The Court rejected the argument that a vested right had accrued by mere inclusion in a list, especially when the list was subject to litigation.

For the third category (TNPSC's appeals), the Court examined the PSTM quota issue. The Notification did not require any verification from the Directorate of Technical Education. The certificate from the Head of the Institution was sufficient. The TNPSC could not impose additional conditions. On the disclosure of marks, the Court noted that the High Court had relied on the public interest exception. Given that the recruitment had been in litigation for over five years, disclosure of marks to individual candidates (but not answer sheets) would help put an end to disputes. The Court found no error in this approach.

The Court also noted that the interim order passed on 17.05.2024 had stayed paragraph 88(a) of the impugned judgment, but before that stay, the MVMD had already carried out the direction and submitted its report on 10.04.2024. Therefore, that part of the exercise was complete.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a pragmatic resolution of a protracted recruitment dispute spanning over six years. It correctly balances the competing interests of different sets of candidates. For the first batch (candidates who were initially successful but later excluded), the Court does not simply reinstate them but directs their inclusion in the fresh selection pool, which is fair given that the re-verification report now confirms their eligibility. For the second batch (candidates who were in the revised list), the Court upholds the fresh selection process, recognizing that many other equally or more meritorious candidates were excluded due to arbitrary administrative practices. The principle that no vested right accrues from a select list that is under challenge is sound.

The Court's reliance on the public interest exception for disclosure of marks is consistent with the precedent in T.R. Rajesh. The clarification that answer sheets need not be disclosed balances transparency with the practical concerns of the recruiting body.

The decision on the PSTM quota is also correct. The recruiting body cannot add requirements not found in the notification. The certificate from the Head of the Institution is a credible document.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly address the fact that the fresh selection process will require candidates to undergo the written examination again? The direction is to complete the selection process as per paragraph 88 of the impugned judgment. Paragraph 88(b) refers to publishing the select list after the decision on retrospective renewal. It is not entirely clear whether a fresh written examination is required or only verification and interview based on the earlier written examination marks. The judgment states that the candidates would "compete with all other eligible and similarly placed candidates" – this suggests that the earlier written examination marks may still be used, but the verification and interview stage will be redone. However, the judgment could have been clearer.

Another concern is that the Court did not set any specific timeline for completion of the fresh selection process, merely stating that the TNPSC shall complete the exercise "at the earliest." Given that the recruitment started in 2018 and the judgment is in 2026, a more definite timeline (e.g., three months) would have been appropriate.

The judgment also does not address the fate of the 32 candidates who were initially appointed in 2019 and then set aside. Those candidates may have served for some period before the first Single Judge judgment in 2020. The judgment is silent on any relief for them.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in cases where a recruitment process is vitiated by arbitrary administrative practices (like inconsistent approval of qualifications). It establishes that a fresh selection process is the appropriate remedy, not partial inclusion or exclusion. It also reinforces that candidates cannot claim vested rights from a select list that is under challenge. The public interest exception for disclosure of marks will be invoked in other prolonged recruitment litigations.

9. Final Outcome

The Civil Appeals were disposed of in the following terms:

First batch (candidates excluded from revised list – SLP (C) No. 7906/2024, SLP (C) Nos. 12856-57/2024, SLP (C) No. 7940/2024):

The appeals were disposed of with a direction that the TNPSC shall consider the names of these appellants for inclusion in the select list to be published as directed in paragraph 88(b) of the impugned judgment. The MVMD's re-verification report dated 10.04.2024 had confirmed that these appellants possessed more than one year of workshop experience. They would be required to compete with all other eligible candidates on merit. The TNPSC was directed to complete the selection process at the earliest.

Second batch (candidates in revised list of 226 – SLP (C) No. 12475/2024, SLP (C) No. 12474/2024, SLP (C) No. 12472/2024, SLP (C) No. 12855/2024, SLP (C) No. 20487/2024):

The appeals were dismissed. The Court upheld the direction of the Division Bench to undertake a fresh selection process after granting retrospective approval to workshops. No vested right accrued to the appellants merely by placement in the revised select list dated 28.04.2021, as they were permitted to participate in the fresh process.

Third batch (TNPSC's appeals – SLP (C) Nos. 8880-81/2026):

The appeals were dismissed. The Court affirmed the High Court's directions regarding the PSTM quota (certificate from Head of Institution is sufficient) and disclosure of marks of candidates not in the zone of consideration (permitted in public interest, but answer sheets not to be disclosed).

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

10. Practical Application

First, for candidates participating in a recruitment process where eligibility criteria depend on approvals from third parties (such as workshop approval certificates), it is important to ensure that the workshop's approval is valid for the entire period of claimed experience. However, if the approval is granted retrospectively by the competent authority after the fact, courts may treat the experience as valid, especially if the candidate was not at fault for the delay.

Second, for recruiting bodies and public service commissions, this judgment underscores the importance of having a uniform, transparent, and non-arbitrary policy for granting approvals or renewals that affect candidate eligibility. Discretionary decisions by individual officers, without published guidelines, can vitiate the entire recruitment process and lead to directions for fresh selection.

Third, for candidates who are included in a select list that is under challenge, no vested right is created. They cannot oppose a fresh selection process if the court finds that the process was flawed. Their remedy is to participate in the fresh process, not to insist on the original list.

Fourth, for candidates claiming benefits under special quotas (such as PSTM), the recruiting body cannot impose additional verification requirements beyond what is stated in the notification. A certificate from the prescribed authority (Head of Institution) is sufficient. If the recruiting body wishes to verify further, it must include that requirement in the notification.

Fifth, for candidates seeking disclosure of marks under the Right to Information or court orders, the judgment in T.R. Rajesh (as applied here) allows disclosure of marks of candidates not in the zone of consideration if public interest so requires, particularly when the recruitment is mired in litigation. However, answer sheets need not be disclosed.

Sixth, for courts adjudicating recruitment disputes, this judgment provides a template for dealing with multiple sets of aggrieved parties. The Court should first identify the categories of candidates (e.g., those who were initially selected, those who were in a revised list, and those who were excluded) and then craft remedies that are fair to all while ensuring the integrity of the selection process. A fresh selection process, though time-consuming, may be the only way to provide a level playing field.

11. Court Lines

Line 1 (Level playing field – Para 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."

Line 2 (No vested right in select list – Para 17):

"No vested right could be claimed merely by placement in the revised select list, especially when the right of participation in the fresh selection process was not being taken away."

Line 3 (Sufficiency of certificate from Head of Institution – Para 21):

"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."

Line 4 (Public interest exception for disclosure of marks – Para 22):

"In the aforesaid decision, this Court held that if in a given case, the Court finds that public interest requires 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."

Line 5 (Effect of retrospective approval – Para 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 submitted that as per the report of the re-verification 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."

Line 6 (Arbitrary exercise of discretion – Para 15):

"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 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."

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a candidate who was initially selected but later excluded due to a flawed verification process:

If the flaw is curable (e.g., retrospective approval of a workshop), do not simply challenge the exclusion. Instead, cooperate with the re-verification process. If the re-verification confirms your eligibility, seek a direction from the court to include your name in the fresh selection pool. However, be prepared to compete on merit again; do not claim a right to automatic appointment. The judgment makes it clear that such candidates must compete afresh.

For a candidate who was included in a select list that is under challenge and facing a direction for fresh selection:

Do not rely on the select list as a vested right. The law is settled that no vested right accrues from a select list when the selection process itself is flawed. Instead, participate actively in the fresh selection process. Your earlier placement in the list may be some evidence of merit, but it does not guarantee re-selection. Focus on demonstrating your merit in the fresh process.

For a recruiting body (like TNPSC) facing a challenge to its selection process:

Ensure that all eligibility criteria are clearly defined in the notification. If any condition depends on third-party approvals (e.g., workshop approval), have a transparent, published policy on how such approvals are granted, renewed, and whether retrospective approval is permitted. Arbitrary exercise of discretion by individual officers will lead to the entire selection being set aside. Also, build into the notification a mechanism for verification of claims (e.g., PSTM quota) so that disputes do not arise later.

For a court adjudicating a recruitment dispute involving multiple sets of aggrieved candidates:

First, identify the different categories of candidates (e.g., those selected, those in a provisional list, those excluded). Second, examine whether the flaw in the process affects all candidates equally or only a class. Third, if a class of candidates was deprived of participation for no fault of theirs, the appropriate remedy is a fresh selection process that includes them, not exclusion of the successful candidates nor automatic inclusion of the excluded ones. Fourth, ensure that all candidates are given a fair opportunity to participate in the fresh process. Fifth, impose a strict timeline to prevent further delays.

For a candidate seeking disclosure of marks under RTI or court order:

Rely on the public interest exception in T.R. Rajesh, especially if the recruitment has been subject to prolonged litigation. The judgment in this case affirms that courts can direct disclosure of marks of candidates not in the zone of consideration if it will put a quietus to disputes. However, note that answer sheets need not be disclosed. Also, such disclosure is usually to the individual candidate, not to the public at large.