While stating that public employment should be free from favouritism, the Madras High Court set aside the rejection of a candidate’s claim for appointment as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) and directed the authorities to appoint her to the said post.

The High Court was hearing a plea filed by a woman candidate who alleged that the Teachers Recruitment Board had manipulated employment exchange records to favour a junior candidate in violation of recruitment norms.

A Bench comprising Justice T. Vinod Kumar, while deciding the matter, observed that “the State ought to conduct itself in a fair and transparent manner by affording opportunity to all eligible candidates to fulfil aspirations of securing a government job, instead of showing favouritism or bias in favour of any particular candidate.”

Advocate V. Sivalingam represented the petitioner, while A. Bakkiyalakshmi, GA, appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

The petitioner, a qualified B.Lit and B.Ed graduate, had registered her name with the employment exchange in November 1992 and awaited selection for the post of B.T. Assistant (Tamil). However, when vacancies were filled in 2012, a junior candidate, who had registered after her, was appointed instead.

According to the petitioner, her initial representation in 2012 was ignored, compelling her to approach the High Court in 2013. She contended that the appointment violated employment exchange seniority norms and that the authorities had altered the other candidate’s registration date to make him appear senior. Despite repeated representations and an earlier direction from a Division Bench to verify the facts, her grievance was rejected.

The authorities, however, claimed before the Court that the other candidate had registered earlier in April 1992. On that basis, her petition was dismissed. However, through a Right to Information (RTI) response, she later obtained official confirmation showing the other candidate’s actual registration date to be April 1993, several months later than hers.

Court’s Observation

The Madras High Court examined the record and found that the Teachers Recruitment Board had taken contradictory positions at different stages. While one department maintained that the other candidate’s registration was in 1993, the Board continued to rely on an altered 1992 date to justify his appointment.

The Bench noted that the Board had failed to file any counter-affidavit defending its decision, while other authorities distanced themselves from responsibility. The Court held that the inconsistency and manipulation of records reflected a lack of bona fides in the selection process.

The Bench, while making these observations, remarked that “the act of altering the year of registration to advance one candidate’s seniority by a year shows undue favouritism and cannot be countenanced in law.”

Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh (2025), the Bench reiterated that “absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instils and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions are the ones who have deservedly been installed to such positions.”

The Court held that through the entire selection process, “the respondent had acted in utter disregard of the fairness which is required to be exhibited while dealing with public appointments.”

Conclusion

Setting aside the rejection order, the Madras High Court directed the authorities to appoint the petitioner as B.T. Assistant with effect from the date the other candidate was appointed and to extend all consequential benefits.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Cause Title: T. Gangeswari v. The State of Madras & Ors.

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate V. Sivalingam

Respondents: A. Bakkiyalakshmi, GA, C. Kathiravan, SC, V. Yamunadevi, Spl. GP

Click here to read/download Judgment