SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 341

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
K. Vignesh – Petitioner
Versus
NLC India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director – Respondent
WP No. 14267 of 2025 and W.M.P Nos.16051 & 31408 of 2025
Decided On : 08-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: S. Sathia Chandran
For the Respondents: M/s. N. Nithianandam, Standing Counsel

Employer-verified work experience certificates are valid and cannot be disregarded based on unverifiable end-user data, ensuring fair employment practices.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Right to Equality - Procedures for Employment - The petitioner challenged the cancellation of a provisional offer of appointment for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) based on alleged discrepancies in work experience details. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and successfully completed the selection process, but faced cancellation citing unverifiable data. (Paras 2, 7, 8)

(B) Employment Verification - It was established that the employers confirmed the authenticity of the petitioner's work experience certificates while end-user verification showed discrepancies. The court ruled that verified employer certifications take precedence over unverifiable end-user assertions. (Paras 3, 7)

(C) Reasonableness of Action - The court highlighted that the action of cancellation was arbitrary and unjust, emphasizing the necessity for a fair verification process. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Scheduled Tribe candidate, applied for the position of Executive Engineer (Civil) and was provisionally selected. Following verification, the provisional offer was cancelled based on discrepancies during end-user verification.

Findings of Court:
The verification from employers confirmed the petitioner’s work experience, and thus, the cancellation was found unjustified.

Issues: Whether employer-verified experience should outweigh unverifiable end-user data in employment verification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the genuine nature of the work experience certificates confirmed by employers cannot be dismissed solely based on missing data from end-users.

Result: The impugned order was set aside, directing the issuance of the appointment offer.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's background and qualifications for employment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner argues cancellation of appointment is arbitrary. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court examines verification process and confirmations from employers. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. court directs issuance of offer of appointment. (Para 8)
5. writ petition allowed and costs determined. (Para 9)

ORDER :

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the second respondent and seeking to quash the same; consequently, to direct the second respondent to issue Final Offer of Appointment to the petitioner as Executive Engineer (Civil) in E4 Grade, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to the Hindu Paniyan Community which is a Schedule Tribe. After completing his SSLC in 2009, he pursued the Higher Secondary Course and successfully completed the same in March 2011. Thereafter, he was admitted to the B.E (Civil Engineering) in National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, which he successfully completed in 2015. After completion of his higher education, the petitioner worked as a Project Engineer, Quality Engineer, and Site Engineer in various private limited companies from 2015 to date, gaining substantial onsite and practical experience. Wherever he worked, he performed to the fullest satisfaction of his superiors. Whileso, the petitioner participated in the selection process for direct recruitment to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) [E4 Grade] under Civil [Mines], as per the notification published by the second respondent dated 05.07.2023 for filling up 20 vacancies. The reservation for the said post was notified as UR-08, EWS-01, OBC-05, SC-04 & ST-02. The petitioner possess all the qualifications for the said post as specified in the notification and as he belongs to a Schedule Tribe, he applied online for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) [E4 Grade] by uploading the necessary certificates as required. Thereafter, the petitioner received a Call Letter-cum- Admit Card for Screening Test dated 10.02.2024, whereby, he was required to appear for a Screening Test to be held on 24.02.2024. Accordingly, he appeared for the said Screening Test, which was conducted in writing on the appointed date, and performed to the best of his abilities. Subsequently, he was provisionally Shortlisted in Sl. No.47 for Document Verification held on 26.02.2024 followed by an interview on 27.02.2024. Thereafter, on 29.02.2024, the second respondent published the result of the selection process whereby, 20 candidates were declared provisionally selected for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil)/Mines [E4 Grade]. However, in the said list, two candidates were selected under the Schedule Tribes category as notified. The petitioner was not selected at that stage. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that out of the two selected candidates under the Schedule Tribes category, one Dhanavath Chandru did not report for duty and consequently, being the No.1 candidate available under the ST category on the wait list panel, the petitioner's name was considered. As such, the second respondent issued a Provisional Offer of Appointment letter dated 23.08.2024 for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) in E4 Grade, to the petitioner. As he was required to submit his acceptance of the offer, the petitioner duly submitted the Acceptance Letter and Declaration on 29.08.2024 to the second respondent. Subsequently, he was required to appear for pre-employment Medical Examination in the NLC and he took part in the said Medical examination on 13.09.2024 and was found to be medically fit. Though the petitioner had fulfilled all the conditions set out in the provisional appointment letter dated 23.08.2024, he was not issued the final offer of appointment by the second respondent. As such, the petitioner approached the office of the second respondent in person and on his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top