Delhi High Court Declares Age as Tie-Breaking Criterion in CISF Recruitment: "Absence of Specific Rules Mandates Fair and Equitable Resolution Based on Seniority by Age"

Share this article

1. Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court decided that, in the absence of a specific tie-breaking formula in the examination notification, age must be used as the determining factor to resolve ties in marks. The Court held that:

The petitioner, being older, deserved to be selected over the last recommended candidate.
The petitioner should be granted retrospective seniority above the last selected candidate.
The last candidate’s appointment will not be disturbed.
No monetary benefits (pay or allowances) are granted for the period during which the petitioner was not employed in the promoted role.

2. Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the CISF, applied for the post of Assistant Commandant through the LDCE-2019. The recruitment process involved:

Written Examination:
- Paper-I: Objective type, 300 marks.
- Paper-II: Subjective, 100 marks.
Physical Endurance and Medical Tests.
Interview/Personality Test: 200 marks.

The petitioner and the last recommended candidate both scored identical total marks (369/600). However, differences arose in the component scores:

Paper-II Marks: Petitioner: 39, Last Candidate: 43.
Interview Marks: Petitioner: 132, Last Candidate: 128.

The petitioner was denied selection, as the UPSC resolved the tie by giving preference to Paper-II marks, following its standard formula:

Higher total written marks.
Higher marks in Paper-I.
Seniority by age (if earlier criteria fail).

The petitioner challenged this formula, arguing that age should have been the deciding factor due to the absence of a tie-breaking rule in the recruitment notification.

3. Issues

The primary legal questions were:

Whether age should have been the determining factor in resolving the tie in marks.
Whether the UPSC’s standard tie-breaking formula could be applied in the absence of a specific notification provision.

4. Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued:

The recruitment notification did not prescribe any tie-breaking formula, creating ambiguity.
In similar cases (Amresh Shukla v. Directorate General, CISF & Anr.), the Court had decided that age should be used to resolve ties.
The UPSC acted as an “agent” of the CISF and had limited authority to apply its own tie-breaking formula.
Given his seniority by age, the petitioner should have been selected.

5. Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents (UPSC and CISF) contended:

The UPSC consistently applies a tie-breaking formula giving preference to marks in specific components (e.g., Paper-II) before considering age.
The precedent in Amresh Shukla was flawed as it undermined the constitutional role of the UPSC, which operates under Articles 315 and 320 of the Constitution.
The petitioner’s interpretation of the rules could disrupt the standardized recruitment process.

6. Analysis of the Law

The Court analyzed:

Ambiguity in the Notification:
- The recruitment notification did not explicitly state how ties should be resolved, leaving room for interpretation.
Precedent:
- In Amresh Shukla, the Court had ruled that age should be the tie-breaking factor in similar recruitment processes for the same post.
- The Supreme Court had dismissed the challenge to this judgment, solidifying its authority.
Role of UPSC:
- While the UPSC has a constitutional role in conducting examinations, it cannot override rules established for specific recruitments by the appointing authority (CISF in this case).
Fairness:
- Resolving ties based on age aligns with service jurisprudence, ensuring equitable outcomes for candidates.

7. Precedent Analysis

The Court extensively referred to Amresh Shukla, where:

The absence of a tie-breaking formula led the Court to prioritize seniority by age.
It emphasized that service rules should promote fairness and avoid fortuitous outcomes.
The principle of prioritizing age was consistent with past practices and broader principles of equity in service law.

8. Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned:

The petitioner’s argument was valid, as the recruitment notification lacked a specific tie-breaking rule.
Age is a fair and logical criterion for resolving ties, as it avoids arbitrary outcomes and reflects seniority.
The UPSC’s formula, while consistent with its practices, could not override the Court’s earlier precedent or the equitable principles underpinning service rules.

9. Conclusion

The Court ruled:

The petitioner must be declared selected for the post of Assistant Commandant.
The petitioner’s appointment should include retrospective seniority above the last selected candidate but exclude pay or allowances for the intervening period.
The appointment of the last selected candidate will remain unaffected.

10. Implications

This judgment underscores:

The need for clarity in recruitment notifications, particularly regarding tie-breaking rules.
The precedence of fairness and equity in service law, favoring age as a tie-breaking criterion in the absence of explicit rules.
The limits of the UPSC’s authority when acting on behalf of other appointing authorities.

D23 Download

Also Read – Calcutta High Court Quashes Proceedings Under Sections 420, 406, and 120B IPC: Reaffirms That Non-Payment of Dues Without Criminal Intent Is a Civil Dispute and Not Cheating or Breach of Trust

Delhi High Court Declares Age as Tie-Breaking Criterion in CISF Recruitment: “Absence of Specific Rules Mandates Fair and Equitable Resolution Based on Seniority by Age”