Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
D.Esakkimuthu – Respondent
W.A(MD)No.279 of 2026|C.M.P(MD)No.2889 of 2026|W.P(MD)No.1475 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Recruitment
Headnote
For Appellants:Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader
For Respondent: Mr.I.Velpradeep
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of writ appeal and application error. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. single judge's reliance on supreme court precedent. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's sympathetic view on inadvertent error. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. dismissal of writ appeal. (Para 6) |
[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.]
Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)
No.1475 of 2026, dated 30.01.2026, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the appellants were directed to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner under the BC category and permit him to participate in the further selection process, the respondents/State Government, as appellants, have preferred the present writ appeal.
2.The respondent/writ petitioner applied for the posts of Jail Warden and Grade II Police Constable before the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, pursuant to the notification dated 21.08.2025. He belongs to the Backward Community (BC). He submitted his application online. While doing so, in the column relating to community, “OC” was inadvertently entered instead of “BC.” Though the petitioner pointed out the mistake and attempted to rectify it by submitting another application on the same day, the original entry of “OC” remained unchanged. Consequently, the respondent/writ petitioner was treated under the “OC” category instead of the “BC” category. He secured 59 marks in the written examination, whereas the cut-off mark for the BC category is 55. Hence, the writ petition came to be filed.
3.The learned Single Judge found that, while submitting the online application, the writ petitioner had inadvertently mentioned his community as “OC” instead of “BC,” and that the same had been subsequently corrected. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2024) 11 SCC 785, and holding that candidatures cannot be rejected for trivial omissions or errors, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition.
4.We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5.We are inclined to take a sympathetic view of the matter, inasmuch as the incorrect entry of community in the online application was inadvertent and the writ petitioner had taken immediate steps to rectify the same. When the community status of the writ petitioner is not in dispute, a mere erroneous entry in the online application cannot deprive him of his rightful consideration under the appropriate category. The writ petitioner has secured 59 marks, which is well above the cut-off mark prescribed for the BC category.
6.In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
