Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by two candidates, B.Gurusamy and S.Anandaraja, challenging the notification dated 04.04.2025 issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board for direct recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, and the subsequent provisional selection list. The petitioners alleged that the Board deviated from the prescribed syllabus by omitting Tamil language questions in Part II Main Written Examination (Part B - Psychology Test and Communication Skills) held on 21.12.2025. They sought quashing of the notification and selection list, and a direction to conduct a fresh examination or re-evaluate in accordance with the official syllabus. The Court examined the notification which prescribed a two-part examination: Part I - Tamil Eligibility Test (100 questions, 100 marks, minimum 40 marks to qualify), and Part II - Main Written Examination consisting of Part A (General Knowledge) and Part B (Psychology Test and Communication Skills) carrying a total of 70 marks, with a minimum of 25 marks to qualify. The Court noted that the syllabus for Part II Part B only mentioned 'Psychology Test and Communication Skills' and did not specify Tamil language. The Tamil language test was explicitly covered in Part I as an eligibility test. The Court held that there was no deviation from the syllabus as the Board had already tested Tamil language proficiency in Part I. The Court also observed that the petitioners participated in the examination without any protest and only challenged after the results were declared, and that candidates have no vested right to a particular examination pattern. The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the challenge.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment Examination - Syllabus Interpretation - Deviation from Syllabus - The petitioners challenged the notification and provisional selection list for Sub Inspector of Police recruitment, alleging that the Board omitted Tamil language questions in Part II Main Written Examination contrary to the syllabus. The Court held that the syllabus for Part II Part B only included 'Psychology Test and Communication Skills' and did not specify Tamil language; the Tamil language test was Part I (Eligibility Test). Therefore, there was no deviation from the syllabus. (Paras 2-5) B) Service Law - Recruitment Examination - No Right to Particular Exam Pattern - Participation in Selection - The petitioners participated in the examination without protest and only challenged after results were declared. The Court held that candidates have no vested right to a particular examination pattern, and the Board has the discretion to design the selection process. (Paras 6-7) C) Service Law - Recruitment Examination - Tamil Language Testing - Part I Eligibility Test - The notification clearly provided that Part I was a Tamil Eligibility Test of 100 marks, and only those who scored minimum 40 marks would have their main written examination evaluated. The Court found that the Board had already tested Tamil language proficiency in Part I, and there was no requirement to test it again in Part II. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board deviated from the prescribed syllabus by omitting Tamil language questions in Part II Main Written Examination, and whether the petitioners have a right to challenge the examination pattern after participating in the selection process.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Recruitment examination pattern
- syllabus interpretation
- no right to particular exam pattern
- Tamil language testing
- eligibility test vs main examination
