Madras High Court: Suspicion Without Evidence Cannot Overturn Completed Recruitment
The Madras High Court has delivered a significant ruling emphasizing that mere suspicion without concrete proof is insufficient to invalidate a completed selection process, particularly when the appointed candidates have served in their positions for many years. This judgment was pronounced on Thursday by a division bench comprising Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan.
Court Sets Aside Order for Redoing 2013 Recruitment
The High Court made this observation while setting aside a single judge's order that had directed the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) to redo the entire recruitment process for the appointment of assistant professors in government arts and science colleges in Tamil Nadu, which was initiated in 2013. The bench clarified that the scope of judicial interference in selection processes is limited and should not be exercised unless the selection is fundamentally tainted.
The court stated: "The court is of the considered view that the scope of interference in the process of selection in exercise of powers of judicial review is limited. Unless the selection is completely tainted, there is no scope for issuing a direction to redo the entire exercise of selection."
Background of the Case
The issue pertained to an appeal filed by the TRB challenging a single judge order dated October 29, 2020. The recruitment process began on May 28, 2013, when the TRB issued a notification for recruiting assistant professors. One candidate, M Shibikumaran, participated under the disabled and Backward Class (BC) category but was not initially shortlisted for the interview. However, he was later permitted to appear following court directions. Shibikumaran secured 11 marks but was not selected.
Another candidate, A Alexander, was selected under the BC and Tamil Medium category with 12 marks, which was the cut-off score. Alexander's interview was conducted later after the rectification of an omission that was noticed through an RTI application.
Allegations and Judicial Proceedings
Shibikumaran challenged the selection, alleging irregularities because Alexander's interview was held after the publication of an earlier merit list, which raised suspicions of favoritism. In response, a single judge of the court issued a direction to redo the entire selection process. The TRB, aggrieved by this order, moved an appeal before the division bench.
Court's Rationale for Allowing the Appeal
The division bench allowed the appeal on several grounds:
- The allegation that Alexander's later interview tainted the selection process was not supported by any documentary or incriminating evidence.
- The selection was finalized in 2015, and the selected candidates have been serving in their positions for nearly 10 years.
- Unsettling the selection at this advanced stage would cause serious injustice to the appointed candidates and disrupt the functioning of the educational institutions.
The court underscored that judicial review must be exercised with caution to avoid unnecessary interference in administrative decisions, especially when there is no substantial proof of corruption or malpractice. This ruling reinforces the principle that long-standing appointments should not be disturbed based on unsubstantiated suspicions, thereby providing stability to recruitment processes in the public sector.
