LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 24 July 2026

Can a candidate who let the selection process conclude challenge it only after appointments are issued?

1.B.Unnamalai 2.V.Suganthi 3.K.Ramesh v. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government Human Resources Development Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009
W.A.No.1991 of 2023 · W.A.No.1991 of 2023
Coram: Justice S.M.Subramaniam · Justice N.Senthilkumar · Justice N. Senthilkumar
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Gov…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. If there is any illegality in the recruitment notification, an aggrieved person must challenge it before completion of the selection process; if the taint is discovered only after publication of the selected list, the aggrieved person must approach the Court immediately without undue delay, and cannot wait until after appointment orders are issued.

Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art.226 — Service Law — Delay and laches — Recruitment selection challenge — Service Law — Selection process — Fence-sitter doctrine — Challenge after appointment barred — Held: A candidate who allows the recruitment selection process to be completed without challenging an alleged illegality must approach the Court immediately upon becoming aware of the defect, and cannot wait until appointments are issued. Fence sitters who participate in selection are not entitled to maintain a writ petition after completion of the process and issuance of appointment orders. (¶7, 8) Constitution of India, 1950 — Art.226 — Writ jurisdiction — Delay and laches amounting to acquiescence — Held further: A writ petition filed nearly two years after the recruitment notification and about a year after appointment of selected candidates, and only after a subsequent Division Bench judgment on a related batch, is barred by delay and laches tantamounting to acquiescence, and the relief of quashing the provisional selection list after appointment orders have been issued is not maintainable. Writ Appeal and connected Writ Petition dismissed. (¶6, 9)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 7This Court is of the considered view that if there is any illegality in the Recruitment Notification, an aggrieved person has to challenge the same before completion of process of selection. If the process of selection is tainted and candidates came to know it after publication of selected list, then such aggrieved persons have to approach the Court immediately without causing any undue delay.
Acts & Sections
Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of 1.B.Unnamalai 2.V.Suganthi 3.K.Ramesh v. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government Human Resources Development Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Are fence sitters entitled to maintain a writ petition after completion of the selection process?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections