Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a candidate’s application for the post of Prosecutor in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. Upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order, the Court ruled that eligibility for recruitment must be strictly assessed as on the prescribed cut-off date and based solely on disclosures made in the Online Recruitment Application. The Court held that the Union Public Service Commission acted within its jurisdiction in rejecting the candidature for lack of requisite experience in handling litigation and court matters in a government organisation, and that no arbitrariness or illegality was established.
Facts
The writ petition arose from Advertisement No. 18/2022 issued by the Union Public Service Commission inviting applications for twelve posts of Prosecutor in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The recruitment notice mandated that candidates holding a five-year integrated law degree must possess two years’ experience in handling litigation and court matters or administration of law in a government organisation as on the cut-off date.
The petitioner applied before the last date, declaring experience with a private advisory company from March 2020 to October 2022. The nature of duties disclosed included drafting and negotiating contracts, intellectual property documentation, compliance work, and handling criminal matters relating to forgery and conspiracy. No other experience was claimed in the Online Recruitment Application before the closing date.
Subsequently, additional certificates reflecting prior and later engagements were produced. However, these either related to periods not claimed in the application, were unsupported by admissible certificates as on the cut-off date, or pertained to periods after the application deadline. The candidature was rejected on the ground that the essential two years’ experience in handling litigation and court matters in a government organisation was not fulfilled.
The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed provisional participation in the selection process subject to the outcome but ultimately dismissed the Original Application. The writ petition challenged that decision.
Issues
The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner satisfied the essential experience requirement for the post of Prosecutor as on the cut-off date, based solely on the disclosures made in the Online Recruitment Application.
A related issue concerned whether the recruiting authority was obliged to consider experience certificates submitted after the closing date of applications, or to grant relaxation under the notes appended to the advertisement, particularly in view of the petitioner’s Scheduled Tribe status.
The scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters of recruitment and eligibility determination also fell for consideration.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner contended that the rejection of candidature was unjustified and overly technical. It was argued that subsequent certificates should have been considered to establish cumulative experience in litigation and court-related matters. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the petitioner belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category and was entitled to relaxation under the notes appended to the recruitment advertisement.
It was further submitted that the experience at the private advisory company involved engagement with criminal matters and legal documentation, which substantially satisfied the experience requirement. The petitioner argued that actual court appearance was not explicitly mandated and that any omission in the Online Recruitment Application was bona fide and should not operate to defeat substantive eligibility.
Respondent’s arguments
The Union Public Service Commission and the concerned authorities contended that eligibility must be determined strictly as on the cut-off date and based on the information disclosed in the Online Recruitment Application. It was submitted that the petitioner had claimed experience only in a private company, which did not qualify as a government organisation.
The respondents argued that experience not claimed in the application could not be subsequently introduced to cure deficiencies. They maintained that the duties disclosed were predominantly corporate and contractual in nature and did not establish handling of litigation and court matters in a government organisation. It was also contended that relaxation under the advertisement was discretionary and not an enforceable right.
Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated that the Union Public Service Commission is a constitutional authority entrusted with conducting recruitment strictly in accordance with recruitment rules and advertisement terms. Judicial review under Article 226 is confined to examining whether the decision-making process suffers from mala fides, arbitrariness, or patent illegality.
In recruitment matters, courts do not substitute their own assessment for that of the expert body. Eligibility criteria prescribed in an advertisement must be applied uniformly to preserve equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The sanctity of the cut-off date ensures certainty, transparency, and fairness in public employment.
The Court emphasised that permitting candidates to supplement eligibility after the closing date would undermine the integrity of the recruitment process and introduce arbitrariness.
Precedent analysis
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 85, which held that appointments to public office must strictly conform to the terms of the advertisement and the prescribed schedule. The Supreme Court had ruled that relaxation of conditions is impermissible unless specifically provided and duly publicised, as any deviation would violate Articles 14 and 16.
Applying this precedent, the High Court observed that relaxation clauses, even where available, do not confer an automatic right upon candidates. Any relaxation must be exercised in accordance with the advertisement and cannot be claimed as a matter of entitlement.
The Court found that the recruiting authority’s approach aligned with the principle laid down in Bedanga Talukdar, reinforcing the necessity of strict adherence to advertised eligibility conditions.
Court’s reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioner, in the Online Recruitment Application, had claimed experience only in a private advisory company. The duties described primarily related to drafting, negotiation, compliance, and corporate documentation. There was no material to show engagement in court proceedings or litigation in a government organisation.
The additional certificates relied upon were either not disclosed in the application, unsupported as on the cut-off date, or related to periods beyond the deadline. The Court held that eligibility must be assessed on the basis of disclosures made before the cut-off date, and the recruiting authority was justified in ignoring subsequent material.
Regarding relaxation, the Court observed that the notes appended to the advertisement conferred discretionary power upon the Union Public Service Commission. No material demonstrated that the conditions warranting relaxation were satisfied or that the refusal was arbitrary. Scheduled Tribe status alone did not mandate relaxation.
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the Central Administrative Tribunal had taken a plausible and legally sustainable view. The rejection of candidature for failure to meet the essential experience requirement was neither arbitrary nor illegal. No ground was made out for interference in writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order of the Tribunal was upheld.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the strict compliance doctrine in public recruitment. It underscores that eligibility conditions in recruitment advertisements must be adhered to as on the cut-off date, and subsequent improvements or clarifications cannot cure foundational deficiencies.
The judgment strengthens the principle that discretionary relaxation clauses do not create enforceable rights. For candidates applying to public posts, especially litigation-related roles such as Prosecutor, the decision highlights the importance of accurate, complete, and timely disclosure in online applications.
For recruiting bodies, the ruling affirms institutional autonomy in eligibility assessment and limits judicial interference to cases of manifest arbitrariness or illegality.
Case law references
Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 85
The Supreme Court held that public appointments must strictly adhere to the terms of the advertisement and prescribed schedule. Relaxation of conditions is impermissible unless expressly provided and publicised. Any deviation violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Application in the present case:
The High Court applied this principle to hold that eligibility criteria and cut-off dates must be scrupulously maintained. The recruiting authority could not relax or modify conditions in the absence of demonstrable grounds, and candidates could not claim relaxation as a matter of right.
FAQs
1. Can a candidate submit additional experience certificates after the recruitment cut-off date?
No. The Delhi High Court has reiterated that eligibility must be determined strictly as on the cut-off date and based on disclosures made in the Online Recruitment Application. Subsequent certificates cannot cure deficiencies in essential eligibility criteria.
2. Does belonging to a Scheduled Tribe automatically entitle a candidate to relaxation of experience criteria?
No. Relaxation clauses in recruitment advertisements confer discretionary power on the recruiting authority. They do not create an enforceable right. Scheduled Tribe status alone does not mandate relaxation unless the specific conditions for such discretion are satisfied.
3. What is the scope of judicial review in recruitment matters under Article 226?
Courts do not reassess eligibility on merits. Judicial review is limited to examining whether the decision-making process is arbitrary, mala fide, or illegal. Recruiting authorities like the Union Public Service Commission are granted deference in eligibility assessment.
