Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, S.T. Sunitha Rai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Memorandum No. 189/OTD-A/CJ/2021 dated 10.07.2025 issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC), which cancelled her provisional supplemental selection to the post of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. She sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the memorandum and direct the respondents to appoint her pursuant to Notification No. 12/2023. The petitioner had participated in the selection process and scored 256.360 marks, and her name was initially included in the selection list. However, the Selection and Appointment Committee of the Madras High Court discovered a clerical error in entering the marks awarded by examiners, which resulted in another candidate who had secured higher marks being overlooked. Consequently, the Committee resolved to correct the error, include the higher-merit candidate, and cancel the petitioner's provisional selection. The TNPSC issued the impugned memorandum accordingly. The court examined the facts and the counter affidavit filed by TNPSC, which revealed that the error was identified and corrected to uphold merit. The court held that the cancellation was valid as it was based on a clerical error and aimed at restoring merit-based selection. The court further held that the petitioner had no vested right to the provisional selection, and principles of natural justice were not attracted as no adverse civil consequences ensued from correcting an error. The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Judicial Recruitment - Clerical Error Correction - Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service - The petitioner's provisional selection was cancelled after the Selection Committee discovered a clerical error in entering marks, resulting in a higher-merit candidate being overlooked. The court held that the correction of such error to restore merit-based selection is permissible and does not require prior notice to the petitioner, as no vested right accrues from a provisional selection based on an error. (Paras 2-8) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Article 14 - Merit Principle - The court emphasized that the principle of merit must prevail in public employment. Allowing the petitioner to retain selection based on a clerical error would violate Article 14 by preferring a lower-merit candidate over a higher-merit candidate. (Paras 8-10) C) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to Hearing - The court held that the cancellation of a provisional selection due to a clerical error does not attract the principles of natural justice, as no adverse civil consequences arise from correcting an error to uphold merit. The petitioner had no legitimate expectation of appointment. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's provisional selection due to a clerical error in marks entry, which led to the inclusion of a higher-merit candidate, is valid and whether the petitioner was entitled to be heard before such cancellation.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- Clerical error correction
- merit-based selection
- natural justice
- Article 14
- Article 226
- writ of certiorarified mandamus
