The Madras High Court has raised serious concerns over the conduct of an examining committee member who attempted to go back on an earlier recommendation in the Jana Nayagan matter. The court observed that such actions could weaken the credibility of the entire selection or evaluation process.
Court’s Observation on Committee Conduct
While hearing the case, the Madras High Court noted that once an examining committee member has participated in the process and given a recommendation, reversing that stand at a later stage raises questions of fairness and transparency. The court cautioned that this approach may create doubt about the integrity of the decision-making process.
The judges made it clear that examining committees are expected to act responsibly and consistently, especially when their opinions directly affect the rights and prospects of individuals.
Jana Nayagan Case Background
The matter relates to the Jana Nayagan process, where an examining committee was formed to assess candidates and make recommendations. During the proceedings, it was brought to the court’s notice that one of the committee members attempted to withdraw or contradict an earlier recommendation.
This development prompted judicial scrutiny, as the court examined whether such a change in position could be permitted without valid and transparent reasons.
Why the Court Found This Risky
The Madras High Court pointed out that allowing committee members to alter their recommendations casually could open the door to arbitrariness. It could also lead to allegations of bias, pressure, or external influence, which would harm public confidence in institutional processes.
The court stressed that recommendations made after due deliberation carry weight and cannot be discarded lightly.
Importance of Transparency in Examining Panels
The judgment underlined the need for clear procedures and accountability within examining committees. Members must stand by their decisions unless there are exceptional circumstances supported by strong reasons and proper records.
Such safeguards, the court said, are essential to protect the credibility of public institutions and ensure equal treatment for all candidates.
What This Means Going Forward
The court’s observations are likely to serve as guidance for future examining committees and selection panels. Authorities may now be expected to enforce stricter norms to prevent members from changing their stance without justification.
The case also reinforces the role of courts in safeguarding fairness in administrative and selection processes.
Final Takeaway
The Madras High Court’s warning in the Jana Nayagan case highlights the risks involved when examining committee members go back on their recommendations. By stressing consistency and transparency, the court has sent a clear message that institutional trust must be protected, especially in processes that affect careers and rights.