Mere Non-Production Of Selection Records Doesn’t Mean That Candidates Cleared Test: Supreme Court Rejects Inference Drawn By High Court To Order Appointment
The Court accepted the argument of the recruiter that records were destroyed as rules did not mandate their preservation.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court
While setting aside the orders granting appointment to the candidates to the post of Plant Attendant at Durgapur Steel Plant, the Supreme Court has held that mere non-production of records of the selection process does not justify drawing an inference that the candidates had cleared the written test.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upholding the direction of the Tribunal to offer appointments to the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant.
The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held, “The State or its instrumentalities, while filling vacancies, are obligated to adhere to the principle of comparative merit of candidates based on their performance in the recruitment process, and no discrimination is permissible. It is well settled in law that a candidate whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right to appointment to the post in the absence of any specific rule entitling such appointment.”
“The written examination was conducted through an independent agency. Neither the rules nor the advertisement prescribed the duration for which the records of the selection process were to be preserved. Therefore, the explanation of the appellants for nonproduction of the record that the same were unavailable or had been destroyed appears to be bona fide. Mere non-production of such records does not justify drawing an inference that the respondents had cleared the written test”, it added.
Factual Background
An advertisement was issued by the first Appellant, Durgapur Steel Plant, which is one of the five integrated Steel Plants of Steel Authority of India Limited, for recruitment to the post of Plant Attendant. Initially, 90 posts were advertised, which were subsequently increased to 200 due to additional requirements. In 2008, a merit list containing the roll numbers of candidates shortlisted for interview was published. Thereafter, appointment offers were issued to 150 candidates, out of whom 139 joined the service. Subsequently, in view of additional vacancies arising during the same recruitment cycle, 55 more candidates were offered appointments, resulting in a total of 194 candidates joining the service.
In 2009, the respondents filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the production of the results of the written examination and a disclosure of the marks obtained by them. They also sought a direction restraining the appellants from issuing an appointment. Another writ petition was filed challenging the advertisement dated issued by the appellants, for filling posts of Junior Technician/Operator. The Tribunal, by a common order, held that the marks of the written test were neither produced before the Tribunal nor disclosed to the respondents, and there was no documentary evidence to establish that the respondents had failed in the examination.
The Tribunal directed the appellants to offer appointments to the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant or an equivalent post, with suitable age relaxation. It was further directed that the respondents would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list and that the benefits arising from such appointment would be prospective. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court, and by an interim order, the High Court directed the assessment of the candidature of the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement required the publication of the marks obtained by all the candidates who appeared in the written examination. As per the Bench, it was not the case of the respondents that they had passed the examination, and there was no material on record to indicate that the respondents had passed the written examination. “Merely because the respondents were not shown to have failed, no inference could be drawn that they had passed the written examination”, it added.
The Bench also clarified that mere non-production of such records would not justify drawing an inference that the respondents had cleared the written test. The Bench was of the view that a direction for appointment of the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant could not be granted as the qualifications for the post of Plant Attendant were revised in the year 2008.
Thus, setting aside the judgment asking the appellants to provide appointment to the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant, the Bench directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakh to the respondent within two months.
Cause Title: Durgapur Steel Plant v. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 459)