The Delhi High Court has held that merely because the candidate belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category, relaxation in the recruitment criteria for the post of Prosecutor in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is not mandated in the absence of satisfaction of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement.

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) whereby the Original Application preferred by him came to be dismissed, and the rejection of his candidature for the post of Prosecutor in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) was upheld.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held, “In the present case, no material has been placed to demonstrate that the circumstances contemplated under the notes were attracted or that the refusal to exercise such discretion suffered from arbitrariness. The fact that the Petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category, by itself, does not mandate relaxation in the absence of satisfaction of the conditions stipulated therein.”

Factual Background

Pursuant to an Advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), inviting online recruitment applications (ORA), for twelve posts of Prosecutor in the SFIO, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Petitioner applied for the aforesaid post. The Petitioner submitted his application, disclosing that he holds a five-year integrated degree in law. Under the advertisement, candidates holding such an integrated law degree were required to possess two years’ experience in handling litigation and court matters or administration of law in a government organisation, subject to the notes appended thereto. In the Online Recruitment Application (ORA), he disclosed experience in Willard Advisory Pvt. Ltd., claiming to have a total experience of 2 Years 7 Months 13 days.

Upon scrutiny of the application and the documents furnished, the candidature of the Petitioner came to be rejected by the UPSC. The reasons communicated for such rejection indicated that the petitioner was found lacking the requisite experience and certain periods of experience, though sought to be relied upon subsequently after the cut-off date of the application, were either not claimed in the ORA or unsupported by admissible certificates. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the CAT by filing an Original Application. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Tribunal permitted the Petitioner to provisionally participate in the selection process. Later, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application by the Impugned Order.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, mentioned, “The UPSC is a constitutional and specialised recruiting agency entrusted with the task of evaluating the eligibility and suitability of candidates in accordance with the recruitment rules and the terms of the advertisement. The court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ordinarily refrains from interfering unless the action complained of is vitiated by mala fides, manifest arbitrariness, or patent illegality. In matters of recruitment, the scope of judicial review is thus confined to examining the legality of the decisionmaking process and not the merits of the decision itself. The Court is not expected to substitute its opinion in place of the recruiting agency/employer.”

The Bench explained that the duties attached to the post of Prosecutor in the SFIO, as notified in the advertisement, include assisting in the filing of prosecutions and complaints before courts, pursuing their progress, coordinating with counsel engaged by the Government, and maintaining records relating to court cases. “The experience requirement, therefore, bears a rational nexus with the functional responsibilities of the post. In that context, the view taken by the recruiting agency that the experience disclosed by the Petitioner did not satisfy the essential requirement cannot be said to be irrational, arbitrary or perverse”, it added.

Reaffirming that the sanctity of the cut-off date prescribed in a recruitment process has to be strictly maintained, the Bench held that the recruiting agency was justified in confining its consideration to the eligibility claimed and substantiated as on the closing date of applications.

Thus, holding that the Tribunal had taken a view which was plausible and consistent with settled principles governing judicial review in service matters, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Anant Kumar Rao v. Union Public Service Commission (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1221-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Kamini Lau, Jyoti Vashisht, Suniti Bhatt, Rudraksh Jain

Respondent: Advocates Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar Singh, Vasu Agarwal, Lekh Raj Singh, SPC Shrey Sharawat, Government Pleader Arvind, Advocate Ishita Misra

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Anil KshetarpalJustice Amit Mahajan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.