List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of S. Senthil Kumaran Bose v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2026), upheld the Madras High Court's direction to conduct a fresh recruitment process for 113 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II, holding that candidates included in a select list cannot claim a vested right to appointment when a fresh selection is ordered to remedy the exclusion of other eligible candidates. 

What was the Background of S. Senthil Kumaran Bose v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2026) Case? 

• Vide a notification issued in 2018, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) sought to fill 113 posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II through direct recruitment undertaken by the Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Services. 
• TNPSC received 2176 applications; after initial screening, 1328 candidates were permitted to appear for the written examination, and ultimately 32 candidates were found eligible for interview based on the one-year work experience requirement in 2019. 
• By an order dated January 24, 2020, the Single Judge of the Madras High Court set aside the provisional selection of these 32 candidates on the ground that they had gained work experience at workshops whose licences had expired and had not been renewed by the government. Fresh verification of work experience certificates of all 1328 candidates was directed. 
• On appeal, the Division Bench upheld all directions of the Single Judge except the work experience direction. This was further challenged before the Supreme Court in K. Ilavarasan and Others v. R. Vijiyaraj and Others, which was dismissed in 2021. 
• The selection process was undertaken afresh, and based on marks obtained in the written examination, 226 candidates were called for the oral test in 2021. 
• This list was challenged before the High Court again. A Single Judge directed TNPSC to complete the selection process and publish the final list. On further appeal, the Division Bench directed that the entire recruitment process be redone, reiterating that there was no renewal of approval for operating the workshops, and directed the Commissioner of the Transport Department to decide on retrospective renewal within four weeks. 
• Aggrieved candidates approached the Supreme Court: one set (originally part of the list of 32) sought inclusion in the final list, while another set (from the list of 226) challenged the High Court's direction for a fresh recruitment exercise. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On candidates from the original list of 32: The Court noted that the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department had granted retrospective approval to all the concerned workshops. Upon reverification, the work experience certificates of these candidates were found qualified, and the Court held that they would be entitled to have their names considered for inclusion in the select list to be published by TNPSC. 
• On candidates from the list of 226: The Court held that the Division Bench was justified in directing a fresh recruitment, as candidates had been prejudiced through no fault of their own merely because the decision on retrospective approval of workshops was pending. The workshops were always shown as approved on government records, and government vehicles were being serviced there even during the period when renewal was pending. Neither the candidates nor the workshops had control over the timing of renewal, and this could not be a ground to deprive a candidate of the right to seek employment based on experience gained at such workshops. 
• On the absence of policy and direction to the State: Since the candidates were found not at fault for the pendency of renewal applications, and in the absence of a definite policy on the issue, the Court upheld the direction requiring the State Government to take a decision on grant or denial of renewal with retrospective effect. 
• On vested rights: The Court held that inclusion in a revised select list does not, by itself, confer a vested right to appointment, particularly where the right to participate in a fresh selection process is not taken away. It found no justifiable ground to interfere with the Division Bench's direction for a fresh recruitment exercise. 
• On disclosure of marks: The Court also upheld the High Court's direction that, in public interest, the marks of candidates who were not selected must be disclosed. 

What is a Vested Right? 

About: 

• A vested right is a right that has become fixed, complete, and settled in a person, such that it doesn't depend on a future event or condition and generally cannot be taken away without due process of law.  
• Once a right "vests," it becomes part of the holder's legal entitlement, distinguishing it from a mere expectation, hope, or contingent claim. 

Key Characteristics: 

• Complete and immediate – Unlike a contingent right (which depends on an uncertain future event), a vested right is presently enforceable, even if its actual exercise or enjoyment is postponed to a future date. 
• Protected from arbitrary deprivation – A vested right cannot ordinarily be taken away retrospectively by a later law, rule, or executive action unless there is clear legislative intent and authority to do so. 
• Distinguished from an "expectation" – Merely being eligible, being a candidate in a process, or hoping for a benefit does not by itself create a vested right. A right vests only when all conditions for its accrual are fulfilled.