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

First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan would be hearing on Monday (July 27, 2026) the PIL petition filed by Karu Nagarajan of ‘We The Leaders’ movement helmed by former BJP leader K. Annamalai. The petitioner had complained of unfairness in evaluation of the descriptive answers given by the candidates on general topics.

He told the court direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor had not taken place in the State for quite a few years. Initially, a notification was issued in 2019 for filling up 2,331 vacancies but it was rescinded in 2024 when it was decided to fill up 4,000 vacancies. The 2024 notification too was withdrawn in 2025 when a fresh notification was issued for 2,708 vacancies.

As per a Government Order issued on October 6, 2025, candidates who had applied in 2019 and 2024 were given fee exemption and age relaxation for participating in the fresh recruitment process. The Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) conducted a written examination which comprised of objective type questions for 150 marks in the relevant subject in paper-I and descriptive type questions on general topics in paper-II.

In paper-II, the candidates were given five questions on topics such as the 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 for any one of the five questions. This single descriptive type answer carried a total of 50 marks.

Mr. Nagarajan claimed results of the examinations declared on June 25, 2026 revealed that a candidate who had scored 107 out of 150 marks in computer science paper-I had ended up scoring just one mark in paper-II. Conversely, a candidate who had scored 54 out of 150 marks in physics paper-I had scored 49 out of 50 marks in the descriptive answer type paper-II on general topics.

“The said pattern has been noticed across several subjects and it materially affects the final merit ranking of candidates giving rise to widespread concerns regarding the transparency, consistency and uniformity of the descriptive evaluation process, thereby warranting independent judicial scrutiny by this honourable court,” the petitioner’s affidavit read.

The petitioner said, the relief sought by him was not related to adjudication of any individual service dispute but was aimed at ensuring procedural fairness in public recruitment.