Inform Candidates Of Correct Reasons For Not Making Appointment: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a candidate must be informed of the correct reasons behind their rejection to any post.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking directions to appoint the Petitioner to the post of Soldier (GD) on the ground that the grounds of rejection were incorrect.

The division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur observed,"....we would expect the respondents to be more careful in responding to the candidates the reasons for which they have not been given an appointment or considered for an appointment in future so as to avoid such litigation which entails cost and time consumption for the candidates who may not be able to afford it and may be making arrangements for the litigation from their meagre resources."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Ajit Kakkar while the Respondent was represented by Special Public Counsel Jivesh Tiwari.

It was the case of the Petitioner that he reported at 3 EME Centre, Bhopal and undertook the entire selection process, which spread over a period of one month. However, by a cryptic correspondence, he was informed that he had not been selected as he had failed in the written examination and his name does not figure in the merit list of the available vacancies for his State.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that both the grounds of rejection are incorrect which is evident from the reply received to an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 wherein it was admitted that the petitioner scored 100 out of 100 marks in the physical fitness test and scored 66 marks out of 100 in the written test and was awarded a bonus of 20 marks for being the son of an ex-serviceman. It was submitted that the reply further confirmed that the cutoff mark was 176 out of 200 and that, therefore, the assertion of the respondents that the petitioner had failed in his written examination was incorrect, and in fact, the petitioner scored above the cutoff marks. 

He further submitted that, in another reply to the application made by the petitioner under the RTI, the respondents also admitted that the centre was conducting the rally for All India All Caste [AIAC] Vacancies, where candidates from any region in India could participate and there was no fixed vacancy allocated to any particular State. He further submitted that the second ground for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, that the petitioner could not figure in the merit list of the available vacancies for his State, therefore, was also incorrect and was false.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the subject recruitment rally was primarily intended for the sons of war widow/widows/ex servicemen/servicemen and own brothers of service/Ex-servicemen, with priority given to those who belong to the EME Centre and there are five priorities created for the same that the selection would be based first on the priority and secondly on the total marks scored. It was thus argued that simply because the petitioner scored the requisite cutoff marks, he could not be offered an appointment, as he belonged to ‘Priority V’, being a son of an ex-serviceman who did not belong to the EME but to the Regiments of Guards. 

He further submitted that the result was compiled by using the Evaluation, Decoding, Preparation of Merit, and Allotment of Arms and Services [e-DMASS] Software, which was totally automated and therefore, there is no possibility of any tampering with the same.

The Court at the outset noted with dismay that the petitioner was not informed of the correct reasons for his not making the appointment as a Soldier (GD) in the recruitment rally and the litigation could have been avoided had the petitioner been informed of the reasons for his non-selection.

The Court was however of the view that it will not be able to grant any sort of relief though.

"The respondents have explained that keeping in view his priority and the marks he scored, the petitioner did not make the grade for appointment. We are, therefore, afraid that we cannot grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Sandeep Kumar Singh vs. Union Of India & Anr (2024: DHC:9177-DB)

Click here to read/ download Order: