Madras High Court
Dr.M.Sai Ghanesh vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 February, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
Writ Petition Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
and W.M.P.Nos.7201,7202,7204,7397,
7398,7399,7403 and 7404 of 2025
W.P.No.6533 of 2025
Dr.M.Sai Ghanesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Medical Services Recruitment Board,
7th Floor, DMS Buildings,
359, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University,
Rep. by the Registrar,
69, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
3. The Tamil Nadu Medical Council,
No.959 & 960 Poonamallee High Road,
Purasaiwakkam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu, India - 600 084. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 42
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
W.P.No.6740 of 2025
V. Nanthini ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Medical Services Recruitment Board,
7th Floor, DMS Buildings,
359, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University,
Rep. by the Registrar,
69, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
3. The Tamil Nadu Medical Council,
No.959 & 960 Poonamallee High Road,
Purasaiwakkam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu, India - 600 084.
4. The Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
Rep. by its Director,
No.64, 75, Varadharajapuram Main Road,
Chokkalingam Nagar, Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondents
W.P.No.6744 of 2025
Dhina Anbu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Health & Family Welfare,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 42
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
2. The Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB),
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
7th Floor, DMS Buildings,
359, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University,
Rep. by the Registrar,
69, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
4. The Tamil Nadu Medical Council,
No.959 & 960 Poonamallee High Road,
Purasaiwakkam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu - 600 084. ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.6533 of 2025: The Writ Petition is filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in
Notification No.01/MRB/2024, dated 15.03.2024 Clause 6B(III)
modified by Notification dated 14.05.2024 and the selection list in
Reference No.PSL No.01/MRB/2024, dated 20.02.2025 and quash the
same as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural
justice and consequently direct the first respondent to appoint the
petitioner to the post of Assistant Surgeon (General).
Prayer in W.P.No.6740 of 2025: The Writ Petition is filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the
selection list in Reference No.01/MRB/2024, dated 20.02.2025 and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3 of 42
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
Notification No.01/MRB/2024 dated 15.03.2024 Clause 6B(III) modified
by Notification dated 14.05.2024 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary
and violative of principles of natural justice, so far as the non-inclusion
of the petitioner in the provisional selection list and cons direct the
respondents 1 & 4 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant
Surgeon (General).
Prayer in W.P.No.6744 of 2025: The Writ Petition is filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned non-
selection of the petitioner dated 20.02.2025 in PSL No.01/MRB/2024
issued by the second respondent and quash the same, consequently direct
the second respondent to select and appoint the petitioner in the post of
Assistant Surgeons (General).
W.P.No.6533 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi, Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Velmurugan
For Respondent : Mr.J.Ravindran
No.1 Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.L.Murugavelu
For Respondent
No.2 : Mr.G.Arumugam
For Respondent
No.3 : Mr.U.Bharanidharan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4 of 42
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
W.P.No.6740 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arumugavel
For Respondent : Mr.J.Ravindran
No.1 Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.L.Murugavelu
For Respondent
No.2 : Mr.G.Arumugam
For Respondent
No.3 : Mr.U.Bharanidharan
W.P.No.6744 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu
For Respondent
No.1 : Mr.M.Bindran
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.J.Ravindran
No.2 Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.L.Murugavelu
For Respondent
No.3 : Mr.G.Arumugam
For Respondent
No.4 : Mr.U.Bharanidharan
-----
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5 of 42
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
COMMON ORDER
All these Writ Petitions have been filed seeking records relating to
the selection list issued consequent to Notification No.01/MRB/2024,
dated 15.03.2024 with specific reference to Clause 6B(III) modified by
Notification dated 14.05.2024 and to quash the same so far as the non-
inclusion of these writ petitioners are concerned.
2. All the writ petitioners have raised the same ground questioning
the Notification and therefore, a common order is passed with respect to
these writ petitions. It must be fairly admitted that though separate
counsels have advanced arguments, primarily, the arguments overlapped
on one single point which would be taken up for discussion and
addressed during the course of this common order.
3. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.6533 of 2025, Dr.M.Sai Ghanesh
had completed his Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery
(M.B.B.S.) degree in 2023 from Government Kilpauk Medical College,
which is affiliated to the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
final year examination results were declared on 09.05.2023 and
Provisional Certificate was issued to him on 11.05.2023. Thereafter,
there was a necessity and compulsion for the petitioner to do Medical
Internship, which is called Compulsory Rotartory Medical Internship.
That commenced on and from 22.05.2023 and concluded on 21.05.2024.
This Internship is mandatory and only on successful completion of the
same, could the petitioner be termed a Medical Graduate and register
himself with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council and commenced what is
commonly called practising in the Medical Profession. The Provisional
Certificate, on completion of the Internship, was forwarded to the
petitioner on 11.07.2024 by the Dr.M.G.R.Medical University.
4. It is stated by the learned counsel that the said Provisional
Certificate had been issued after due verification of the credentials of the
petitioner herein. The petitioner was one of the candidates, who had
applied for the Permanent Registration Certificate, which is required as
stated to practice as Medical Practitioner. This is issued by the Tamil
Nadu Medical Council after verifying the applications and on coming to
the subjective satisfaction that the candidate who so applies, is eligible to
be granted such certificate. There is a certificate verification procedure,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
which is adopted and the certificate verification is done by the Tamil
Nadu Medical Council in accordance with their own Rules and
Guidelines. The candidate, who require to so register himself, will have
to register in the Official Website of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council
and book a slot for certificate verification through online procedure. The
petitioner herein had uploaded the requisite details on 13.07.2024, but,
according to him, due to severe congestion in the Tamil Nadu Medical
Council portal, he could get a slot only on 22.07.2024.
5. It must also be stated that the petitioner had applied for the post
of Assistant Surgeon (General) and the Writ Petition is focused on the
recruitment process for such post. One of the conditions for eligibility to
be considered to the said post is that this particular certificate issued by
the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, should have been obtained on or
before 15.07.2024. Unless it is so obtained, a candidate, who could have
been permitted to write the examination and was otherwise eligible,
would stand debarred as the Notification is clear and straightforward and
had given a very specific date namely, 15.07.2024. As stated, the
petitioner was able to obtain his certificate only on 22.07.2024. On that
particular ground, holding that he had not obtained the certificate on or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
before 15.07.2024, the petitioner was not considered for the post of
Assistant Surgeon (General). Questioning such rejection, he had filed the
present Writ Petition
6. The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.6740 of 202, V.Nandhini also
had a similar issue. According to the petitioner therein, she was issued
with the provisional degree certificate on 11.07.2024 by her College.
Immediately, on receipt of such certificate, she had applied for
registration to the Tamil Nadu Medical Council on 12.07.2024. It is
stated that she received a reply on 13.07.2024 calling upon her to
exercise the option for getting a slot for physical verification.
7. It is contended by the petitioner that the slots were filled up till
18.07.2024 and the earliest slot available was only on 19.07.2024 and
she opted for the slot on that particular date and on verification of her
certificate, the registration certificate was issued by the Tamil Nadu
Medical Council on 19.07.2024. Again, the petitioner stood ousted while
examining credentials for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General), since
she was not in position to produce her certificate on or before
15.07.2024, which was the cut-off date stated in the Notification. She
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
had filed this Writ Petition questioning such rejection and non-
consideration of her application.
8. The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.6744 of 2025, Dhina Anbu, had
also similarly applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) and he
was also under compulsion to produce the certificate of registration with
the Tamil Nadu Medical Council on or before 15.07.2024. In his
affidavit, he had stated that he was issued with the Provisional Certificate
II on 11.07.2024, which was awarded on formal graduation at
Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. Thereafter, he moved forward to get
himself registered under the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. He had
booked a verification slot on making necessary payment as required for
the registration and could secure a slot only for 16.07.2024, which
according to him, was the earliest date available. Again, unfortunately,
the date 16.07.2024 was beyond the cut-off date of 15.07.2024 and the
respondents have therefore, not pursued his application any further
necessitating the filing of the present Writ Petition.
9. The uniform arguments that have been advanced by the learned
counsel in all the three Writ Petitions is that the Provisional Certificate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
-II, which was issued by Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, was issued only
on 11.07.2024. It had been contended that these three writ petitioners had
completed the course in the College, which runs for about five years in
the year 2023 and had been issued with what is called as Provisional
Certificate - I. But that is not sufficient. They have to undergo the
Internship for a period of one year, which they have successfully
completed. The learned counsels pointed out that thereafter, the
Provisional Certificate-II had been issued by the University, which was
the certificate certifying that they have undergone the course in the
College and also successfully completed their Internship as required for a
further period of one year. It is uniformly contended that this particular
certificate/Provisional Certificate-II was issued only on 11.07.2024. The
learned counsels pointed out that all the three writ petitioners had applied
for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) and they were also permitted
to write the examinations and that therefore, they had a legitimate
expectation that there could be no further hurdles while considering their
selection or on examining their credentials vis-a-vis the applications,
which they had submitted. But, however, it is also stated that the
Notification under which they had so applied for the said post, contained
a further requirement that the candidates should not only have completed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
their course and also their Internship Course and that they had so
completed should be recognised by the Medical University and the
University should have issued a Provisional Certificate - II. They cannot
rest with such certificate but, must further register themselves, to enable
them to be called as Registered Medical Practitioner, with the Tamil
Nadu Medical Council. This registration by the Tamil Nadu Medical
Council is an independent process and it required the writ petitioners to
apply online through the portal of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. The
Tamil Nadu Medical Council would independently verify the certificates
and credentials and after verifying the same, they would issue their
certificate approving that the petitioners are qualified to practice as
Medical Professionals.
10. The learned counsels pointed out that after receiving the
Provisional Certificate -II, only on 11.07.2024, the petitioner had applied
immediately in the portal of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. There was
a congestion in the said portal and they were not allotted slots within the
date which they expected and therefore, they were able to get their
certificates only on a later date i.e after 15.07.2024. Therefore, they were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
well behind the cut-off date of 15.07.2024. The learned counsel stated
that there was a plausible reason as to why the petitioners could not
register themselves with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, since it was
not their fault, but, only owing to the reason that the Provisional
Certificate-II had been issued only on 11.07.2024 and thereafter, when
they had opened up the portal of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, owing
to the congestion, they were granted slots beyond the date of 15.07.2024.
It had been stated that irrespective of the fact that they had registered
themselves with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council after 15.07.2024, it
cannot be denied or disputed that they had actually registered themselves
and therefore, they were otherwise eligible to be considered for selection
to the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) as called for in the
Notification issued by the respondents. It is therefore contended that
rejection of their applications was with the mala-fide intention.
11. In W.P.No.6533 of 2025, the learned counsel advanced a
specific argument that the petitioner therein was singled out to be ousted
and it was stated that this was done to favour other candidates. The
leaned counsel stated that the petitioner had applied for registration in
the Tamil Nadu Medical Council portal well within 15.07.2024 and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
learned counsel alleged mala-fide on the part of the respondents that his
certificate was not verified before 15.07.2024. A specific argument was
advanced that it was with intention that there was a delayed approval of
the certificate and they were approved only on a much later late.
However, at the same time, the petitioner had not pointed out the
particular candidate, who was so favoured by the respondents and the
reason as to why the petitioner, out of thousands of other candidates, had
been singled out and what was the special necessity for the respondents
to single out this particular writ petitioner and oust him from being
considered for selection.
12. This arguments advanced is only recorded, since it had been
advanced across the Bar.
13. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf
of the Medical Recruitment Board, which was the Agency which
conducted the selection process and issued the Notification, at the very
outset, contested the arguments advanced that there could be a possibility
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
that the petitioner had been singled out to be ousted. The learned
Additional Advocate General pointed out that the total number of posts
initially was 2553 which had been later increased to 2644, which were
the vacancies. He stated that 23,917 applicants had applied and out of the
same, 17,701 candidates have actually written the examination. He
further stated that out of them 14,981 had been selected and written in
Tamil and an equal number had been selected, who had written in the
various subjects and finally, the respondents had narrowed down to
4,885 candidates and had given a ratio as 1:8 for the selection process.
The learned Additional Advocate General pointed out the very
impossibility when so many applicants have applied to single out one
particular candidate from the thousands of applications and exercise
mala-fide against him and ensure that he stood ousted from being
considered for the selection process.
14. The learned Additional Advocate General was therefore
emphatic in his submission that all the applicants had been treated on an
equal footing and those who had submitted their registration certificate
with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council on or before 15.07.2024, had been
considered for selection and those who had not had been uniformly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
barred from such selection. It had been emphasised that there was no
favour shown to any candidate and that the selection was transparent and
it was conducted based only on the examinations conducted and on the
basis of the marks which the candidates had obtained and more
importantly, on the basis that they had satisfied all the criteria as required
in the Notification.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
15. While addressing the above particular argument, it is also
required to have an examination of the Notification, which had been
issued by the Tamil Nadu Medical Services Recruitment Board. The
Notification was initially issued on 15.03.2024 for 2553 vacancies in the
posts of Assistant Surgeon (General). The dates were already given in
that particular Notification. The date of the Notification was 15.03.2024.
It was further stated that the commencement of submission of application
through Online mode would be from 24.04.2024 and the last date for
submission of application, which is online registration and online
payment, was initially 15.05.2024. By a subsequent corrigendum, this
particular date of 15.05.2024 was extended to 15.07.2024. It was not
extended to favour any single candidate or any one candidate, but, it was
applied as a uniform principle for all the candidates who had chosen to
apply for the said post.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
16. It has also been very specifically stated in the said Notification
that this particular date, namely, initially 15.05.2024 and subsequently
extended to 15.07.2024, was a pre-requisite for consideration of the
candidates for selection.
17. The criteria was categorized under the sub-heading
"Educational Qualification". The criteria is as follows:-
i. Candidates should possess the following or its equivalent
qualification awarded by a University or Institution recognised by
the University Grants Commission for the purpose of its grants.
The courses must have been approved by the Medical Council of
India.
For Assistant Surgeon (General) - MBBS Degree
In addition to the above, the candidates,
i. Must be a registered practitioner within the meaning of
the Madras Medical Registration Act, 1914.
ii. Must have served as House Surgeon (CRRI) for a period
of not less than twelve months.
iii. Candidates should have registered their name in the
Tamil Nadu Medical Council on or before the late date of this
Notification. (Last date for submission of application i.e.
15.05.2024)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
iv. If a candidate claims that the educational qualification
possessed by him/her is equivalent though not the same as those
prescribed for the appointment, the onus of proof rests with the
candidate.
18. The third criteria, quite apart from the M.B.B.S. Degree was
that a candidate should have registered his/her name in the Tamil Nadu
Medical Council on or before the last date of the Notification, which was
15.05.2024, subsequently extended to 15.07.2024. The writ petitioners
herein admittedly had not registered themselves on or before the last date
of the Notification i.e. 15.07.2024. They had registered themselves after
15.07.2024. They had given reasons as to why they could not possibly
get themselves registered before 15.07.2024. The reasons have been
stated even earlier and broadly, they have complained that there was a
rush in the Tamil Nadu Medical Council portal when they had opened it
up and therefore, they were given slots only subsequent to 15.07.2024
and therefore, it was not possible for them to get themselves registered
on or before 15.07.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
19. In this connection, a reference can be straight away made to a
judgment, which has not been cited across the Bar, but since it had been
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is binding on this Court and
is binding on everybody who approaches this Court. The judgment was
reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58, Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NLT
of Delhi) and Others, taken up along with Santhosh Kumar Meena
and Othes. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court had examined the recruitment process and particularly the
eligibility criteria and conditions which had been stipulated and also
examined the relevant date which had been determined in the
Notification issued for the recruitment, in this case, for the selection or
recruitment for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General). It had also been
held very categorically that the eligibility conditions should be examined
as on the last date for receipt of applications. It had also been further held
that those candidates who had fulfilled the requisite qualification on the
last date of receipt of the applications alone had a right to be considered
for appointment. In converse, it could also be inferred that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had placed a bar for considering candidates who had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
fulfilled the requisite qualification after the last date of receipt of
applications. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further stated that the result of
the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. It had
been stated that when the Delhi High Court had found that the appellants
in that case had not possessed the requisite eligibility on the prescribed
date after Notification, the finding of the Delhi High Court that the
appellants were ineligible for appointment, could not be called for
interference by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The reasons of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court were as follows:-
11. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition
that the selection process commences on the date when applications
are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of the
application has a right to be considered against the said vacancy
provided he fulfils the requisite qualification.
12. In U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad &
Anr. v. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723, this Court, after considering a
large number of its earlier judgments, held that eligibility
conditions should be examined as on last date for receipt of
applications by the Commission. That too was a case where the
result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of
submission of the applications. This Court held that as the result
does not relate back to the date of examination and eligibility of the
candidate is to be considered on the last date of submission of
applications, therefore, a candidate, whose result has not been
declared upto the last date of submission of applications, would not
be eligible.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
13. A three Judge Bench of this Court, in Dr. M.V. Nair v.
Union of India & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 429, held as under:- "It is well
settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with
reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of
course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a
date." (Emphasis added)
14. In Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions,
Punjab & Anr., 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 706, this Court held: "It is to
be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last
date has been fixed for receipt of the applications, such of those
candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date,
alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment
according to Rules." (Emphasis added)
15. This Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of
Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 held:
"10. The contention that the required qualifications of
the candidates should be examined with reference to the date
of selection and not with reference to the last date for making
applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of
selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge
of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be
unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in
question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications.
Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference
to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said
date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the
candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in
praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The
uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary
consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the
qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an
uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the
number of applications. But a still worse consequence may
follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The
date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain
some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the
absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/
notification inviting applications with reference to which the
requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date
for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
making the applications. Reference in this connection may also
be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public
Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra(1990) 2 SCC 669;
and District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social
Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi
(1990) 3 SCC 655." (Emphasis added)
16. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, 1993
Supp (2) SCC 611 [hereinafter referred to as Ashok Kumar (1993)],
the majority view was as under:
"15. The fact is that the appellants did pass the
examination and were fully qualified for being selected
prior to the date of interview. By allowing the appellants
to sit for the interview and by their selection on the basis
of their comparative merits, the recruiting authority was
able to get the best talents available. It was certainly in
the public interest that the interview was made as broad
based as was possible on the basis of qualification. The
reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus based on
sound principle with reference to comparatively superior
merits. It was in the public interest that better candidates
who were fully qualified on the dates of selection were
not rejected, notwithstanding that the results of the
examination in which they had appeared had been
delayed for no fault of theirs. The appellants were fully
qualified on the dates of the interview and taking into
account the generally followed principle of Rule 37 in
the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinion that
the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the
Division Bench was incorrect". (Emphasis added)
However, the opinion of Justice R.M. Sahai had been that these 33
persons could not have been allowed to appear for the interview as
they did not possess the requisite eligibility/qualification on the last
date of submission of applications.
17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar
Sharma v. Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18 reconsidered and
explained the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) (supra)
observing:
"6. The proposition that where applications are
called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for
filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall
have to be judged with reference to that date and that date
alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date
cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or
notification issued/published calling for applications
constitutes a representation to the public and the authority
issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act
contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if
it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications
after the prescribed date but before the date of interview
would be allowed to appear for the interview, other
similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just
because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding
that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by
the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a
preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been
rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is
indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the
majority judgment." (Emphasis added)
The Court further explained that the majority view in Ashok
Kumar Sharma (1993)(supra) was not correct, rather the dissenting
view by Justice R.M. Sahai was correct as the Court held as under:
"6. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by
allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the
recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available
and that such course was in furtherance of public interest
is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our
considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error
apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M.
Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was
right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have
been allowed to appear for the interview." (Emphasis
added).
18. It may also be pertinent to mention here that in the
aforesaid case reference to Rekha Chaturvedi (supra) appears to
have been made by a typographical error as the said judgment is by
a two-Judge Bench of this Court. In fact the court wanted to make a
reference to the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) (supra).
19. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC
2011, this Court placing reliance on various earlier judgments of
this Court held:
"13....The High Court has held (i) that the cut-off
date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be
satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no
cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be
appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for
applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then
the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last
date appointed by which the applications have to be received
by the competent authority. The view taken by the High
Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is
therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with."
(Emphasis added)
20. This Court lately in State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T.
Tiwari, AIR 2012 SC 3281 held:
"14. A person who does not possess the requisite
qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason
that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and
would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post
cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would
amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a
person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason
that he does not have a right which can be enforced through
court. (See Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal 1993 Supp (1) SCC 714
and Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services
Commission (2008) 7 SCC 153.)" (Emphasis added)
A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar
v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, (2008) 7 SCC
153; and State of Orissa v. Mamta Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436.
21. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess the
requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the
application though he applied representing that he possessed the
same. The letter of offer of appointment was issued to him which
was provisional and conditional subject to the verification of
educational qualification, i.e., eligibility, character verification etc.
Clause 11 of the letter of offer of appointment dated 23.2.2009 made
it clear that in case character is not certified or he did not possess
the qualification, the services will be terminated. The legal
proposition that emerges from the settled position of law as
enumerated above is that the result of the examination does not
relate back to the date of examination. A person would possess
qualification only on the date of declaration of the result. Thus, in
view of the above, no exception can be taken to the judgment of the
High Court."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
20. In that particular case, the advertisement issued by the Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board for the post of Trained Graduate
Teachers was called in question. In that particular Notification, the last
date for submission of the application in entirety including all the
requisite certificates, was determined as 29.10.2007. The appellant
therein, had appeared for the B.Ed examination prior to the submission
of the application, but, the result was subsequently declared only on
28.01.2008, which was after the last date of submission of the
application i.e. 29.10.2007. He however, participated in the selection
process and was also issued with an appointment letter on 19.06.2009.
The appointment was temporary and on provisional basis for two years.
He also joined the service on 26.06.2009. Thereafter, the Deputy
Director of Education, New Delhi, had re-visited the selection process
and had issued a show cause notice to the appellant therein as to why his
selection should not be interfered with, as his B.Ed degree was obtained
only on 28.01.2008 i.e. much after the cut-off date of 29.10.2007.
21. In paragraph No.9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reduced the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
dates and had noted that the facts are not dispute. While examining the
stand of the appellant therein that the application form has been
processed,that thereafter he had actually obtained the requisite
qualification namly, B.Ed degree, which was the basic degree to be
obtained for consideration for selection for Trained Graduate Teacher
and that he had actually been issued with an appointment order and that
he had also joined the service and therefore, issuance of the show cause
notice after such process had been completed was extremely prejudicial,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforementioned, had very categorically
stated that there cannot be any dispute over the legal proposition that the
selection process commences on the date when the applications are
invited and every individual or candidate eligible on the last date of
submission of the application alone has a right to be considered against
the vacancies, provided he fulfils the requisite qualifications. In this
connection, as extracted above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
examined what they termed as a settled legal provision and had placed
reliance on the judgments as stated in paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17,
19 and 20. Thus, a catena of judgments as pointed above, have been
referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for holding that unless a
candidate is qualified on the last date of submission of application, he or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
she cannot claim a right to be considered for selection. Thereafter, in
paragraph No.21 which had been extracted above, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had further reiterated that the legal proposition which emerged
from the settled position of law was that the result of the examination
does not relate back to the date of examination but rather to the last date
of submission of the application form.
22. The learned counsel for the petitioners had however called
upon the Court to exercise what could be termed as sympathy to
understand their position that they had obtained their certificate only on
11.07.2024 and had immediately attempted to apply for registration with
the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, but could not do so on or before
15.07.2024. It had been contented that this was an issue beyond their
control and therefore, this Court should exercise some benevolence to the
petitioners herein and also hold that they should be selected for the post
of Assistant Surgeon (General).
23. However, the learned Additional Advocate General in this
context, had referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, Ran Vijay Singh and Others Vs. State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
Uttar Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had examined the
scope of judicial review with respect to a recruitment process. Though
that particular judgment was with respect to examination of correctness
of an answer key as projected by the respondents therein, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had also touched upon the arguments advanced in the
instant case for extension of benevolence by this Court in favour of the
petitioners herein. The reasoning of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as
follows:-
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion
does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing
re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the
examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers.
The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed
only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or
perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an
erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer
equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be
helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This
Court has shown one way out of an impasse – exclude the suspect
or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of
this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is
interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This
places the examination authorities in an unenviable position
where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates.
Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination
exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no
doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for
an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the
examination authorities put in equally great efforts to
successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task
might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the
examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in
by the candidates who have successfully participated in the
examination and the examination authorities. The present
appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such
interference where there is no finality to the result of the
examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the
examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering
about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination –
whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be
approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get
admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will
get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to
anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in
confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger
impact of all this is that public interest suffers.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the extracted portion referred
supra, had very categorically stated that sympathy or compassion does
not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation
of an answer sheet while examining the plight of a candidate. It had also
been stated that despite several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
there was interference by the Court which would obliquely imply that
the High Court suspected the results of the examination. It had also been
stated that this places the examination authorities in an unenviable
position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates, who alone
should be under scrutiny. It had also been stated that this unsatisfactory
situation of exercising right of judicial review, would not work to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
anybody's advantage and would only lead to a state of uncertainty and
confusion which is worse, when compounded. It had also been stated that
over all, the larger impact of all this exercise is that public interest
suffers.
25. In the instant case, this Court had taken up for discussion the
stand taken by three candidates, but, as pointed out, the total number of
vacancies even in the Notification was 2553, which had been
subsequently increased and the total number of candidates, who had
applied was well above 20,000 and this Court can never a cherry pick
three candidates and direct that others should be examined on a different
platform and that these three petitioners should be given a higher
pedestal and should be viewed accordingly.
26. There is yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
which is a Constitution Bench judgment and I must also state that it was
also not cited in the Bar. It is the judgment of the Constitution Bench in
Civil Appeal No.2634 of 2013, Tey Prakash Pathak and Others Vs.
Rajasthan High Court and Others. Five Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had examined the correctness of the ratio held by a three Judges
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
Bench in K.Manjusree Vs. State of Kerala. The Constitution Bench had
an occasion to examine what they termed as "Rules of the Game". They
had very specifically stated that when once the recruitment process had
commenced, there cannot be any tinkering with the Rules of the Game,
so far as the prescription of the eligibility criteria is concerned. Though
this particular judgment was rendered on the facts that there was a
change in the Notification criteria during the recruitment process but, the
principle examined that there cannot be any visitation of a Notification
once issued, had been upheld and reiterated by the Constitution Bench.
The findings of the Constitution Bench had been summarised in
paragraph No.42 which was as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms:
(1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the
advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of
vacancies;
(2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified
at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be
changed midway through the recruitment process unless the
extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not
contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is
permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the
change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the
Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;
(3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and
is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander
Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with
the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K.
Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select
List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different
issues;
(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise
appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its
logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent,
non-discriminatory/ non- arbitrary and has a rational nexus to
the object sought to be achieved.
(5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the
recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility.
However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent,
administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;
(6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to
appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide
reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
27. This judgment of the Constitution Bench has been rendered
very recently on 07.11.2024 just about three to four months back and the
principles laid down therein are binding not only on this Court, but also
on the writ petitioners and also on the respondents.
28. A careful perusal of the aforementioned principles would
show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that the recruitment
process commences from the date of issuance of the advertisement
calling for applications and ends up with the filling of the vacancies. It
had also been stated that the eligibility criteria for being placed in the
Select List as notified at the commencement of the recruitment process,
cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process, unless the
Rules so permit.
29. In the instant case, the Notification was straightforward.
The Notification was clear. There cannot be any other interpretation of
the wordings in the Notification, which stipulated that the last date for
registration with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council was 15.07.2024.
There was no provision provided in the Notification that for individual
candidates, on a pick and choose method, this particular process could
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
be extended according to the whims and fancies of either the respondents
or to put it also quite widely by this Court. The date has been prescribed
and the date cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process.
The result which would only flow from opening up the gates further
would be catastrophic. There would not only be just these three
petitioners but hundreds and hundreds of other candidates, who would
have also similarly registered themselves with the Tamil Nadu Medical
Council after 15.07.2024 and who would have written the examination
and who would now seek a right to be considered for selection. This
would throw the Notification into the dustbin and this Court cannot
permit it to do so. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
Notification as issued is sacrosanct and any selection process should be
done only in accordance with the guidelines given in the said
Notification. The Notification cannot be tampered with and cannot be
altered and cannot be modified and the date given therein cannot be
extended either by the Court or by the respondents, unless the Rules
permit.
30. In the instant case, the initial date was 15.05.2024 and
thereafter, the respondent had uniformly extended the date to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
15.07.2024. It is also be to noted that so far as these writ petitioners are
concerned, they had applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General)
only on the basis of the said Notification. They had subjected
themselves to be qualified as required under the terms of the
Notification. They had projected that they would be eligible to be
selected and they would abide by the terms and conditions in the
Notification. After the process commenced and after it had nearly
concluded, now they cannot claim that the date in the Notification
should be changed and they must be permitted and must also be
considered to be recruited for the said post. This would only lead to
extreme arbitrariness. One of the petitioners was able to get the
certificate registered on 22.07.2024, another one was able to get it
registered on 16.07.2024. The moot question which this Court will have
to put to itself is to the date to which the Court should extend the cut-off
date. Should it be extended to 22.07.2024 to accommodate one of the
writ petitioners or should it be extended to 16.07.2024 to accommodate
one writ petitioner and exclude the other writ petitioners. This would
only lead to extreme prejudice caused by the judicial process and that is
impermissible. The respondents had determined the cut-off date on
15.07.2024 and the petitioners had taken a conscious decision to apply
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
for the post with the intention that they would be comply with the
requisite qualification on or before 15.07.2024. If they had failed to do
so, then they cannot call upon this Court to extend the date to any other
arbitrary date. This Court is not the Selection Board. This Court cannot
take on the role of a supervisor over and above the Recruitment Board
and issue directions extending the cut-off date. That would only lead to
extreme arbitrariness and open up the flood gates for hundreds and
hundreds of other candidates. It would also prejudice the right of those
candidates, who had diligently obtained the certificate on or before
15.07.2024. As a matter of fact, it is also seen that there were also
candidates, who had obtained the certificate only on 11.07.2024 and had
applied online and had obtained the slots had physically gone over to the
Tamil Nadu Medical Council and were able to get their certificates
verified and received the certificates on or before 15.07.2024 and found
themselves eligible. If the petitioners had any interest, they could have
adopted the same procedure.
31. It is poor argument to state that merely because a candidate
had applied online, he would sit in front of the computer at home 24
hours a day and not move a little finger to ensure that the registration is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
done within the stipulated time. If the petitioners had been diligent
enough like others were, they could have gone over physically to the
office of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council and could have sought
verification of their certificates then and there and could have found
themselves eligible for being selected.
32. A list has been given on behalf of the learned Standing
Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Medical Council and this list runs to pages
and pages. In the Status Report, it had also been stated that the officials
of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council had worked over time even on
holidays to ensure that all the pending applications which were applied
through online were cleared and slots were given. This Court, cannot at
this stage when the selection process had been completed, set the clock
back.
33. One more argument which had been advanced was that after
the selection list had been issued on 20.02.2024, it had been put up by
the respondents that those who had any grievances should raise their
grievance within a 10 day slot. The learned counsels raised an issue that
the counselling however, commenced immediately on 22.02.2025 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
that the respondents themselves had given a 10 days window to examine
grievances raised.
34. But however, the learned Additional Advocate General
countered this point and stated that those who could reasonably object
were those who had been rejected in the qualifying examination. The
petitioners' marks have been declared and therefore, they cannot raise a
grievance as against the list put up. Their only grievance is that the date
15.07.2024 should be extended by one day in one case, by seven days in
another case, for all we know by 30 days in yet another case to
accommodate candidates only because they were not able to get
themselves registered with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council within the
stipulated time. But this claim has to be balanced with the fact that there
were numerous candidates, whose details have been given to this Court
and which is part of the Court records who had physically gone over, as
stated earlier, to the office of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council and
ensured that their certificates were verified and registration as qualified
Medical Professionals were issued. They stood eligible to be considered.
It is a different issue whether they were recruited or not, but, they took
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
upon themselves the responsibility of going over physically to the office,
which only shows that they had intention while applying for the post.
35. In view of the reasons stated, I am afraid this Court is not in a
position to exercise discretion on the grounds raised by the writ
petitioners. The writ petitioners will have to fail and accordingly, they
are dismissed.
36. In the result, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
26.02.2025
ASI
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Health & Family Welfare,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Secretary,
Medical Services Recruitment Board,
7th Floor, DMS Buildings,
359, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University,
69, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 032.
4. The Tamil Nadu Medical Council,
No.959 & 960 Poonamallee High Road,
Purasaiwakkam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu, India - 600 084.
5. The Director,
Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
No.64, 75, Varadharajapuram Main Road,
Chokkalingam Nagar, Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
ASI
Writ Petition Nos.6533, 6740 and 6744 of 2025
and W.M.P.Nos.7201,7202,7204,7397,
7398,7399,7403 and 7404 of 2025
26.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
