Plea in Madras HC seeks establishment of expert committee for evaluation of examination papers of assistant aspirants

Ariel view of the Madras High Court. File | Photo credit: K. Picumani

A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Madras High Court for setting up an independent expert committee to examine the fairness, consistency, transparency and uniformity in the evaluation of the answer scripts of 42,064 candidates of the competitive written examination for 2,708 assistantship vacancies in 61 faculties of government arts and science colleges in Tamil Nadu.

First Division Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan on Monday (July 27, 2026) heard a PIL filed by Karu Nagarajan of the ‘We The Leaders’ movement led by former BJP leader K. Annamalai. The petitioner complained of unfairness in the assessment of candidates’ descriptive responses to general topics.

He told the court that direct recruitment for the post of assistant professor had not been done in the state for quite a few years. Initially, a notification was issued in 2019 to fill 2,331 vacancies, but it was withdrawn in 2024 when it was decided to fill 4,000 vacancies. The 2024 notification was also withdrawn in 2025 when a new notification was issued for 2,708 vacancies.

According to the government order issued on October 6, 2025, candidates who applied in 2019 and 2024 got fee waiver and age relaxation for participating in the new recruitment process. The Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) conducted a written examination which consisted of objective type questions for 150 marks from the relevant subject in Paper I and descriptive type questions on general topics in Paper II.

In Paper II, candidates were given five questions on topics such as Indian Economy, Constitution, Modern Indian History, History and Economy of Tamil Nadu, Environment and Ecology, Science and Technology and Current Affairs and were expected to write an essay-type answer to any of the five questions. This single descriptive type answer was worth 50 points in total.

Mr. Nagarajan claimed that the results of the examinations declared on June 25, 2026 revealed that a candidate who secured 107 out of 150 marks in Computer Science Paper-I ended up with only one mark in Paper-II. On the contrary, a candidate who secured 54 out of 150 marks in Physics-I written paper scored 49 out of 50 marks in descriptive answer paper-II on general topics.

“The said pattern has been observed in several entities and substantially affects the final ranking of candidates on merit, raising wide-ranging concerns about the transparency, consistency and uniformity of the descriptive evaluation process, warranting independent judicial review by this Hon’ble Court,” the petitioner’s affidavit said.

The petitioner submitted that the remedy sought by him was unrelated to the adjudication of any individual service dispute but was aimed at ensuring procedural fairness in the recruitment of the public.

Published – 26 Jul 2026 11:42 IST