2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice T. VINOD KUMAR
S.Kalaiarasan – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent
WP.2103/2019 | WP.4068/2019 | WMP.2356/2019 | WMP.4532/2019

Recruitment process must adhere strictly to published notification; altering eligibility criteria mid-process or accepting applications contrary to advertised qualifications renders selection illegal.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Village Assistant Service Rules, 1980 - Rules 7(c) as amended by GO.Ms.No.375 dated 19.10.2015 - GO.Ms.No.521 dated 17.06.1998 - Principle from Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajera Bhimrao Mave (2001) 10 SCC 51 - Recruitment process must be based on the notification issued; selection criteria cannot be altered or modified after commencement of process (para 30).

(B) Public Employment - Village Assistant - Advertisement prescribing educational qualification of 8th standard pass and 10th standard fail - Subsequent claim of typographical error - Effect - Where the advertisement expressly states a specific eligibility criterion, the recruiting authority cannot accept applications from candidates with higher or lower qualifications without issuing a corrigendum or cancelling the notification - Doing so vitiates the entire selection process and renders the appointment illegal (paras 23-29, 36).

(C) Service Rules - Residence requirement - Clause 7(c) of GO.Ms.No.521 (requiring candidate to belong to the same or adjoining village) was substituted by GO.Ms.No.375 w.e.f. 19.10.2015 to require only that the candidate belongs to the same Taluk - Thus, a challenge based on the old village-based residence rule fails (paras 43-45).

Facts of the case:
Two writ petitions were heard together. In WP.No.2103 of 2019, the petitioner (a B.E. graduate) challenged the appointment of the 5th respondent as Village Assistant for Mooduurai Village. The advertisement dated 12.09.2016 required candidates to have passed 8th standard but failed 10th standard. Despite this, the 3rd respondent accepted the application of the 5th respondent, who held a B.Com degree, and appointed him. The respondents claimed the mention of '8th pass and 10th fail' was a typographical error and the correct qualification was 5th pass as per GO.Ms.No.375. No corrigendum was issued. In WP.No.4068 of 2019, the petitioner, a resident of a nearby village, challenged the appointment of the 3rd respondent to the post of Village Assistant for Devapaalam Village, contending that the appointee resided 35 km away, violating the residence rule under GO.Ms.No.521. The respondents countered that the rule had been substituted to require only taluk-level residence, and that the petitioner performed poorly in the interview.

Findings of Court:
In WP.No.2103 of 2019, the court found that the respondents deliberately specified the erroneous qualification to exclude other eligible candidates, including the petitioner. The selection process was stage-managed to favour the 5th respondent. The appointment was patently illegal and set aside. The court directed the first respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the officials involved. In WP.No.4068 of 2019, the court held that the residence clause relied upon by the petitioner had been substituted; the appointee belonged to the same taluk. Further, the petitioner's performance in the interview was below average, justifying her non-selection. Hence, the petition was dismissed.

Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of a candidate with higher qualification (B.Com) is valid when the advertisement prescribed '8th pass and 10th fail'? (Paras 22-36) 2. Whether the residence requirement for Village Assistant is based on the village or the taluk after the amendment? (Paras 39-45) 3. Whether a candidate who did not apply can challenge the selection? (Para 33)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a recruitment process must strictly adhere to the published notification; any deviation without proper corrigendum renders the selection illegal. The claim of a typographical error cannot be accepted when the same erroneous qualification was communicated to the Employment Exchange and no corrective action was taken. The substitution of Rule 7(c) by GO.Ms.No.375 changed the residence requirement from village to taluk, thereby validating the appointment in the second case. Mere humanitarian grounds cannot justify appointment of an unqualified candidate. Result : WP.No.2103 of 2019 is allowed, setting aside the selection and appointment of the 5th respondent; WP.No.4068 of 2019 is dismissed. No order as to costs.