Madras High Court Intervenes in TNUSRB Recruitment Exam, Orders Mark Re-evaluation
The Madras High Court has issued a significant directive to the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB), mandating the award of marks for three disputed questions to candidates who appeared for the recruitment examination held on November 9, 2025. This exam was for the posts of Grade II police constable, jail warder, and fireman, and the court's decision aims to address grievances over the answer key.
Court Orders Fresh Selection List and Appointment Process
Justice M. Dhandapani of the Madras High Court has directed TNUSRB to publish a fresh selection list and proceed with the appointment process. This order came in response to a plea filed by candidates Tamilarasan and Sathish, who challenged the final answer key published on December 26, 2025. They alleged that five specific questions—numbers 6, 7, 13, 31, and 52—contained incorrect answers, ambiguity, spelling errors, or were outside the prescribed syllabus.
The petitioners argued that their objections were not properly considered before the final answer key was issued, raising concerns about the fairness of the recruitment process. In opposition, TNUSRB maintained that the process was fair and transparent, stating that objections were invited after the publication of the preliminary answer key and that expert opinions were obtained for the disputed questions.
Court's Detailed Examination and Ruling on Disputed Questions
The court thoroughly examined whether interference with the final answer key was warranted and reviewed the expert opinions provided for the disputed questions. Based on this review, the court directed TNUSRB to award marks to all candidates for questions 6, 13, and 31, acknowledging errors or issues in these items.
For question 7, the court took a nuanced approach, directing the board to award marks specifically to the two petitioners, Tamilarasan and Sathish. This decision was made due to the absence of authoritative material supporting the expert opinion on the answer, highlighting a lack of clarity in the evaluation process.
Regarding question 52, the court instructed TNUSRB to award marks to candidates who marked the answer as opined by the experts, ensuring that those who followed the expert guidance are not penalized. This ruling underscores the importance of expert input in resolving such disputes and aims to uphold the integrity of the recruitment examination.
Implications for Recruitment and Future Processes
This court order is expected to impact the selection outcomes for the Grade II police constable, jail warder, and fireman posts, potentially altering the final merit list. It also sets a precedent for how recruitment boards in Tamil Nadu and possibly other states handle answer key disputes, emphasizing the need for transparency and proper consideration of candidate objections.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in public service recruitment exams, where issues like ambiguous questions or inadequate review processes can lead to legal interventions. By mandating a fresh selection list, the court seeks to ensure that the appointment process is just and equitable for all candidates involved.
