Supreme Court of India
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR.versusUMESH KUMAR
- Citation
- 2020 INSC 578
- Decided
- 7 October 2020
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- D Y CHANDRACHUD
Holding
The respondents did not acquire a vested right to appointment; consequently, the writ of mandamus was unwarranted and the appeals were allowed.
Summary
The Delhi Police advertised 523 vacancies for Constable (Executive) in 2013. After the written exam, a provisional list was issued on 13 July 2015, but a bonus mark for candidates taller than 178 cm was omitted, prompting a revised list on 17 July 2015 that included the respondents, Umesh Kumar and Satyendra Singh. Subsequent objections led to the appointment of an Expert Committee, whose report identified errors in the answer key, resulting in a further revised list on 22 February 2016 that excluded the respondents because they fell below the new OBC cut‑off. The Delhi High Court, however, issued a mandamus directing their appointment. The Supreme Court held that inclusion in a selection list does not create a vested right to appointment, especially when the result was revised before any offer was made, and therefore the mandamus was unlawful. The appeals were allowed and the High Court judgments set aside.
Issues considered
- The respondents had a vested right to appointment after being listed in the 17 July 2015 result.
- Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing appointment despite the subsequent revision of the result.
- The effect of revising a recruitment result before any appointment offer is made.
Legislation cited
- Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980s. 24, s. 25
- RPF Rules, 1987s. 275
Subjects
public recruitmentselection listvested rightmandamusDelhi Policeresult revisionexpert committeeservice law
Judgment
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 583 583
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. A
v.
UMESH KUMAR
(Civil Appeal No. 3334 of 2020)
OCTOBER 07, 2020 B
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law – Non-selection in the revised result – In 2013, a
notice was published in the newspapers for filling up vacancies for
C
the post of ‘Constable (Executive) – Male’ in Delhi Police – The
respondents were declared to be selected under OBC category –
However, it was found that an error had crept in due to the failure
to allocate a bonus mark to every candidate whose height was in
excess of 178 cm – In the revised result dated 17.07.2015, certain
candidates from the original list were ousted while new candidates D
came in – Respondents were declared selected in revised result as
well – A set of OAs were instituted by unsuccessful candidates
before the Tribunal challenging the answer keys prepared – An
Expert Committee was appointed – In the meantime, the joining of
selected candidates in pursuance of the result dated 17.07.2015
E
was kept in abeyance and no offers for appointment were issued –
Following the report of the Expert Committee, the results were revised
again on 22.02.2016 – As a consequence, the respondents were
ousted – The respondents filed OA challenging their non-selection
in the revised result dated 22.02.2016, however, the OA was
dismissed – The writ petitions filed by the respondents were allowed F
and direction was issued to appoint them – On appeal, held: It is
settled that mere inclusion of candidate in a selection list does not
confer them a vested right to appointment – In the instant case,
after name of respondents appeared in the results declared on
17.07.2015, the process of recruitment was put in abeyance since
G
the results were challenged before the Tribunal – The process of
revising the results during the course of the recruitment was
necessitated to align it in accordance with law – The report of the
Expert Committee established errors in the answer keys – The
respondents failed to fulfil the revised cut-off – The respondents
are not entitled to any direction in their favour contrary to law H
583
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A since they had no vested right to appointment – The revised result
was declared before offers of appoitment were made to the
respondents since the entire process of recruitment was put in
abeyance – Thus, the High Court committed error in issuing a
mandamus to the appellants to appoint the respondents.
B Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The real issue is whether the respondents were
entitled to a writ of mandamus. This would depend on whether
they have a vested right of appointment. Clearly, the answer to
this must be in the negative. In Punjab SEB vs. Malkiat Singh,
C this Court held that the mere inclusion of candidate in a selection
list does not confer upon them a vested right to appointment. In
the present case, after the name of respondents appeared in the
results declared on 17 July 2015, the process of recruitment was
put in abeyance since the results were challenged before the
Tribunal. The process of revising the results during the course
D of the recruitment was necessitated to align it in accordance with
law. An Expert Committee was specifically appointed following
the institution of proceedings before the Tribunal. The report of
the Expert Committee established errors in the 15 answer key,
and thereafter a conscious decision was taken, after evaluating
E the report, to revise the results on 1 February 2016. In the fresh
list which was drawn up, both the respondents have admittedly
failed to fulfil the cut-off for the OBC category to which they
belong. As the ASG submitted before the Court, as many as 228
candidates are ranked above respondent in the first of the two
appeals on merit while 265 candidates stand above the respondent
F in the companion appeal. The submission that these are the only
two candidates before this Court would not entitle them to a
direction contrary to law since they had no vested right to
appointment. [Para 14][593-G-H; 594-A, G-H; 595-A-C]
2. In Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, the Court then
G refused the oust those individuals from service who did not make
the grade after re-valuation of the result since they had been in
service for nearly seven years. However, in the present case,
the revised result was declared even before offers of appointment
were made to the respondents since the entire process of
H recruitment had been put in abeyance. [Para 16][596-C-D]
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. v. UMESH KUMAR 585
Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 690 : A
[2013] 4 SCR 753; Punjab SEB v. Malkiat Singh (2005)
9 SCC 22 : [ 2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 329 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 4 SCR 753 relied on Para 11 (vii)
B
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 329 relied on Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3334
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 10143 of 2017. C
With
Civil Appeal No. 3335 of 2020
Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG, Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv, B. V. Balaram
Das, Mukul Singh, Ms. Alka Agarwal, Atul Jha, Vikrant Yadav, Sanjiv D
Das, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Tripurari Ray, Rajendra Yadav, M.C.
Dhingra, Gaurav Dhingra, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
E
1. On 27 January 2013, a notice was published in the newspapers
for filling up 523 vacancies for the post of ‘Constable (Executive) –
Male’ in the Delhi Police. The break-up of vacancies indicated 262 to be
unreserved, 142 for OBC candidates, 79 for Scheduled Caste candidates
and 40 for those belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. The candidates
appeared for a physical endurance and measurement test on 4 October F
2013. Upon qualifying at the test, the candidates were allotted roll numbers
for appearing in the written examination. Of a total of 50,422 candidates,
39,597 appeared in the written examination which was held on 8 March
2014. This examination was cancelled by the Delhi Police, and a fresh
written examination was held on 25 May 2014, which was cancelled as G
well. Finally, a written examination was conducted on 16 November 2014,
consisting of one objective - type multiple choice question paper of 100
marks. After an evaluation of the OMR sheets, a list of 514 provisionally
selected candidates was declared on 13 July 2015. Nine vacancies could
not be filled up due to the unavailability of suitable candidates in the ex-
H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A servicemen category. The respondents were declared to be selected
under the OBC category. During the course of scrutiny, it was found
that a bonus mark had not been allocated to candidates whose height
was measured at 178 centimetres or above at the time of the physical
endurance and measurement test. Candidates were entitled to an extra
bonus mark under the provisions of Point No. 4 (II) of the then Standing
B
Order 212 of 2011, according to which:
“A candidate whose height is 178 cms or more shall be given 01
bonus mark, to be added in the total marks while determining the
merit list.”
C Accordingly, the result was recompiled after allocating one bonus
mark to all the candidates with a height of at least 178 centimetres and
a final revised result was declared on 17 July 2015. 512 candidates were
selected while the remaining 11 vacancies were not filled up due to the
unavailability of candidates from the ex- servicemen category. In the
result which was declared on 17 July 2015, 32 new candidates came
D within the selection zone and 34 candidates were ousted.
2. The respondents to the present Civil Appeals were declared as
selected from the OBC category in the revised result as well. The minimum
qualifying marks for the OBC category were 71.29004295. Umesh
Kumar, the respondent in the first of the two appeals secured 74.16991306
E marks. Satyendra Singh, the respondent in the companion appeal secured
71.49891738 marks. In the note attached to the final list declared on 17
July 2015, all candidates were directed to report to the DCP –
Recruitment Cell, New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi for further
“codal formalities” between 27 July 2015 and 31 July 2015. Candidates
F were distributed on these dates in accordance with their roll numbers:
G
H
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. v. UMESH KUMAR 587
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
3. All the selected candidates were issued the prescribed forms so A
as to expedite the process of recruitment. The object appears to have
been that during the commencement of batches for basic training, the
candidates should have all documents complete, to facilitate the issuance
of offers of appointment. The documents which were issued to candidates
were:
B
“a. Attestation Form for Police Verification (F-36).
b. Medical Form (F-37) for medical examination.
c. Agreement Form (F-81) i.e. regarding depositing of capitation
charges in case he / she left service before 5 years after joining
Delhi Police. C
d. Certificate of Character (F-82).
e. Undertaking (F-83).”
4. All candidates were directed to submit the attestation form
(F-36) for police verification and a medical form (F-37) for conducting a D
medical examination in accordance with Rules 24 and 25 of the Delhi
Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980. On receipt of a
satisfactory police verification and medical report, candidates were to
be issued a communication directing them to report at the Recruitment
Cell- NPL, together with original documents. The following forms had
E
to be submitted before the issuance of an offer of appointment:
“a. Agreement Form (F-81) i.e. regarding depositing of capitation
charges in case he/ she left service before 5 years after joining
Delhi Police.
b. Certificate of Character (F-82). F
c. Undertaking (F-83).”
5. The respondents submitted Form F-36 for verification of
character and antecedents, and Form F-37 for medical examination on
28 July 2015. Both of them were examined by the medical board and
were declared to be medically fit. The verification of character and G
antecedents was also received. In the case of Umesh Kumar, the medical
examination was conducted by the Medical Board at Rao Tula Ram
Memorial Hospital, GNCT of Delhi on 20 August 2015, while the
verification of character and antecedents was conducted by Haryana
Police on 23 August 2015 and was received by the Recruitment Cell on H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A 8 September 2015. In the case of Satyendra Singh, the medical
examination was conducted on 27 August 2015 by the Medical Board at
Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi
while the verification of character and antecedents was conducted by
the SSP, Alwar, Rajasthan and was received by the Delhi Police through
a letter dated 25 August 2015.
B
6. In the ordinary course, both the respondents would likely have
been appointed as Constables in Delhi Police. However, on 29 September
2015, some other candidates approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal1 in O.A. No. 3657 of 20152 and O.A. No. 4258 of 20153. The
applicants before the Tribunal challenged the answer keys in the written
C examination and claimed that they had not obtained marks for correct
answers for question Nos. 17, 55, 56, 71, 75, 79, 86 and 90 of question
booklet series ‘C’ as well as for the same questions of booklet series
‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘D’ with different sequence numbers. The Competent
Authority in Delhi Police appointed an Expert Committee to examine all
D the issues and to submit its report after making “a master answer
compendium and resultant answer key”. In the meantime, the recruitment
process for the joining of selected candidates in pursuance of the result
dated 17 July 2015 was kept in abeyance and no offers for appointment
were issued. The Expert Committee which was constituted on 20
November 2015 submitted its report on 26 December 2015. The
E grievances which were raised in OAs were examined and it was found
that there were typographical errors in the answer keys. The Tribunal
disposed of the OAs by a judgment dated 8 January 2016, with the
following directions:
“ …in view of the statements made by the respondents that further
F action regarding the recruitment process will be taken as per the
recommendations of the Expert Committee, and that till date no
candidate has been given appointment for the post in question,
and, considering the vagueness of the statements made by the
respondents, we deem it just and proper to direct the respondents
G to ensure submission of the report by the said Expert Committee
within one month from today, if such report has not yet been
submitted by the Expert Committee, and to take further necessary
1
“the Tribunal”
2
Ankit Kumar & others vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & others
3
H Anuj Kumar vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & others
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. v. UMESH KUMAR 589
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
action regarding the recruitment process within two months from A
today. Ordered accordingly.”
Upon receipt of the report of the Expert Committee, the following
decisions were taken on 1 February 2016 by the recruitment authority:
“
B
i. 14 questions declared “Null/Void” for the reasons like none
of the given options being correct. Questions having more
than one possible answers, mis-match in the meaning of
English & Hindi versions etc.
ii. In all the 21 questions (12 for General Knowledge section C
and 07 of Reasoning ability section and 02 of Numerical
ability section) including 7 questions (3 for General
Knowledge section and 3 of Reasoning ability section and
1 of Numerical ability section), which were declared void
earlier, full marks be given to all candidates in such a
manner that all candidates were given marks as per scaling D
method for the respective number of Questions from each
category.
iii. The options of answer of Q. No.6 & 10 (Booklet Series
‘A’) may be changed/modified from (B) to (D) & from
(A) to (B) respectively as well as options of the same E
questions of other Booklet Series (B, C & D) having
different sequence number may also be changed accordingly.
iv. The option of answer of only Q.No.67 (Booklet Series- A)
may be changed/modified from (B) to (D) as the option of
answer of the same question of other Booklet Series (B), F
(C) and (D) is correct.”
7. Resultantly, the entire result was revised. The final result after
re-evaluation of all OMR sheets was declared on 22 February 2016. 518
candidates were declared to be provisionally selected subject to “codal
formalities”, such as the satisfactory verification of character and G
antecedents, medical examination and final verification of documents.
Five vacancies could not be filled up due to the unavailability of suitable
candidates from the ex-servicemen category. In the final result which
was declared on 22 February 2016, 129 new candidates came into the
selection zone and 123 candidates who had been declared selected earlier
H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A in the result of 17 July 2015 were ousted. The cut-off for the OBC category
after re-evaluation of results was 79.49134163 marks. The marks which
were secured by the two respondents in the revised results of 22 February
2016 were as follows:
• Umesh Kumar : 77.51406888
B • Satyendra Singh : 77.27164463
8. The newly selected candidates from the result declared on 22
February 2016 were called for the completion of “codal formalities”.
Police verification and medical fitness was carried out and the candidates
who successfully completed this process were required to report to the
C recruitment cell at New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi with original
attested copies of documents to collect their offers of appointment. Except
for candidates with an adverse background, all selected candidates were
issued offers of appointment and joined the basic training programme for
Constables in Delhi Police with effect from 4 April 2016.
D 9. After the declaration of the result on 22 February 2016, some
candidates challenged the process before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 969
of 20164 and O.A. No. 1244 of 20165 in March 2016. The Tribunal
dismissed the OAs on 5 May 2016, and the Review Petitions were
subsequently dismissed on 1 June 2016. Following this, writ petitions under
E Article 226 of the Constitution – W.P. (C) No. 7411 of 20166 and W.P.
(C) No. 7624 of 20167 – challenging the judgments of the Tribunal were
also dismissed as not pressed by the Delhi High Court on 7 September
2016.
10. On 21 March 2016, the respondents filed O.A. No. 1146 of
F 2016 challenging their non-selection in the revised result declared on
22 February 2016 before the Tribunal. The OA was dismissed on
15 September 2017. Umesh Kumar then filed a writ petition under Article
226 – Writ Petition (C) No.10143 of 2017 – in the Delhi High Court
which was allowed by a judgment dated 6 December 2018. Following
its decision in the case of Umesh Kumar, the Delhi High Court also
G allowed the writ petition instituted by Satyendra Singh – Writ Petition
(C) No.13052 of 2018 – by its judgment dated 19 December 2018. The
4
Sandeep Kumar & Ors. vs C.P. Delhi & Anr.
5
Bijendere Kumar & Ors. vs. C.P. Delhi & Anr.
6
Sandeep Kumar & Ors. vs. Delhi Police & Anr.
7
H Bijender Kumar & Ors. vs. Delhi Police & Anr.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. v. UMESH KUMAR 591
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
ultimate directions that have been issued by the Delhi High Court in the A
first of the two writ petitions are in the following terms:
“For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merits in the submissions
of Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondents. The petition
is accordingly allowed and we direct the respondents to appoint
the petitioner to the post of Constable (Executive), Delhi Police. B
He shall be deemed to have been appointed from the date of
appointment with his other batch mates and his seniority shall be
determined accordingly, on notional basis. However, he shall not
be entitled to any arrears of pay and allowances. Compliance be
made within next four weeks.”
C
The companion writ petition has been allowed in similar terms.
11. Ms Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General has
assailed the correctness of the judgment of the Delhi High Court. The
learned ASG submitted that:
(i) The process of re-evaluation of the first result was necessitated D
following the receipt of complaints and the filing of OAs
before the Tribunal;
(ii) An Expert Committee was constituted by the competent
authority of Delhi Police and upon due enquiry. The report
established irregularities in the preparation of the answer E
key and the allocation of marks;
(iii) Following the report of the Expert Committee a fresh revised
list was drawn up and both the respondents secured marks
below the cut-off for the OBC category;
F
(iv) As many as 228 candidates are ranked higher than the
respondent Umesh Kumar, while 265 candidates are ranked
higher than the respondent Satyendra Singh;
(v) The mere fact that all candidates, including the respondents,
who had been successful in the first result declared on 17
July 2015 have been furnished with requisite documents G
including the agreement form did not confer a vested right
to appointment;
(vi) The revision of result has taken place in accordance with
due process by applying the same yardstick to all candidates.
H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A Admittedly, the respondents have thereafter failed to secure
marks above the cut-off for the OBC category;
(vii) The judgement of the Delhi High Court is contrary to the
law laid down by a two judge Bench of this Court in Rajesh
Kumar vs State of Bihar8; and
B (viii) A grievance of respondent Umesh Kumar that he had
resigned from the Railway Protection Force9 was no ground
for the Delhi High Court to direct the appellants, by a writ
of mandamus, to issue an appointment. The respondent, in
terms of Rule 275 of the RPF Rules, 1987, could have sought
C re-instatement in service which he failed to do.
12. On the other hand Mr Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that:
(i) Neither of the two candidates in question has been at fault;
D (ii) Both the respondents participated in the selection process
and were declared to have been successful in the first result
declared on 17 July 2015;
(iii) Though, as a consequence of the revision of the result, the
respondents stand ousted, grave prejudice has been caused
to them;
E
(iv) By furnishing documents to the respondents including the
agreement form, a representation was held out to them by
the appellants of their eligibility to join Delhi Police and of
their selection to the post; and
F (v) There may be other candidates higher than the respondents
in merit in the revised result, but none of them has approached
this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution or the High
Court under Article 226. Hence, the ultimate direction that
was issued by the High Court should not be disturbed.
G 13. This judgment has adverted to the course which the recruitment
process followed since the publication of an advertisement for selection
to the 2013 batch of Constables (Executive) – Male in Delhi Police. The
narration of facts demonstrates that a result notifying a list of provisionally
8
(2013) 4 SCC 690
9
H RFP
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. v. UMESH KUMAR 593
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
selected candidates was initially declared on 13 July 2015 but it was A
soon found that an error had crept in due to the failure to allocate a
bonus mark to every candidate whose height was in excess of 178
centimetres. The allotment of bonus marks was provided in Standing
Order No. 212 of 2011, which necessitated a revision of the results. In
the revised result, which was declared on 17 July 2015, certain candidates
B
from the original list were ousted while new candidates came in. Both
the respondents were part of the list of successful candidates. Yet, there
can be no dispute about the factual position that the recruitment process
was yet to be concluded. For one thing, the process of verification of
character and antecedents and the ascertaining of medical fitness was
yet to be carried out. But apart from this, a set of OAs came to be C
instituted by unsuccessful candidates before the Tribunal highlighting
grievances in regard to the manner in which the answer key had been
prepared. The authorities agreed before the Tribunal to appoint an Expert
Committee. Following the submission of the report of the Expert
Committee, the results were revised on 22 February 2016. After a decision
D
was taken by the Competent Authority for revising the result, as many as
123 candidates who had been selected earlier were ousted and 129 new
candidates came into the selected list. This process of revising the results
was carried out when the recruitment process was yet to be completed
for the candidates selected in the result declared on 17 July 2015. This
process of the revision of the result was then unsuccessfully challenged E
in the first batch of OAs before the Tribunal, and subsequently the writ
petitions under Article 226 before the High Court were also dismissed as
not pressed. The flip-flops which took place were undoubtedly because
of the failure of the authorities to notice initially the norm of allotting 1
bonus mark based on height and due to the failure to prepare a proper
F
answer key. Such irregularities have become a bane of the public recruitment
process at various levels resulting in litigation across the country before
the Tribunals, the High Courts and ultimately this Court as well. Much of
the litigation and delay in carrying out public recruitment would be obviated
if those entrusted with the duty to do so carry it out with a sense of
diligence and responsibility. G
14. The real issue, however, is whether the respondents were
entitled to a writ of mandamus. This would depend on whether they
have a vested right of appointment. Clearly the answer to this must be in
the negative. In Punjab SEB vs. Malkiat Singh10, this Court held that
10
(2005) 9 SCC 22 H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A the mere inclusion of candidate in a selection list does not confer upon
them a vested right to appointment. The Court held:
“4. …the High Court committed an error in proceeding on the
basis that the respondent had got a vested right for appointment
and that could not have been taken away by the subsequent change
B in the policy. It is settled law that mere inclusion of name of a
candidate in the select list does not confer on such candidate any
vested right to get an order of appointment. This position is made
clear in para 7 of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991
SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95] which reads: (SCC pp. 50-
C 51)
“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are
notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates
are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible
right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied.
D Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to
qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection
they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant
recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill
up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the
State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision
E not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate
reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the
State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates,
as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be
permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by
F this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions
in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3
SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165] , Neelima
Shangla v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC
(L&S) 759] or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1
SCC 122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899] .”
G
(emphasis supplied)”
In the present case, after the name of respondents appeared in
the results declared on 17 July 2015, the process of recruitment was put
in abeyance since the results were challenged before the Tribunal. The
process of revising the results during the course of the recruitment was
H necessitated to align it in accordance with law. An Expert Committee
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. v. UMESH KUMAR 595
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
was specifically appointed following the institution of proceedings before A
the Tribunal. The report of the Expert Committee established errors in
the answer key, and thereafter a conscious decision was taken, after
evaluating the report, to revise the results on 1 February 2016. In the
fresh list which was drawn up, both the respondents have admittedly
failed to fulfil the cut-off for the OBC category to which they belong. As
B
the learned ASG submitted before the Court, as many as 228 candidates
are ranked above Umesh Kumar on merit while 265 candidates stand
above Satyendra Singh. The submission of Mr Khurshid that these are
the only two candidates before this Court would not entitle them to a
direction contrary to law since they had no vested right to appointment.
15. In regard to respondent Umesh Kumar, it is also brought to C
our attention that he resigned from the RPF on 16 August 2015 and his
resignation was accepted on 25 August 2015. Evidently, the respondent
tendered his resignation without any justification when the recruitment
process had not been concluded and even before an offer of appointment
was made to him. In any event, it would have been open to him seek re- D
enlistment in the RPF at the material time which he chose to not do.
16. In Rajesh Kumar (supra), Justice TS Thakur, as the learned
Chief Justice of India then was, dealt with a case where the model answer
key, and hence the process of evaluation of answer scripts by the Bihar
Staff Selection Commission, had been found to be flawed. The Court E
held:
“15.The writ petitioners, it is evident, on a plain reading of the writ
petition questioned not only the process of evaluation of the answer
scripts by the Commission but specifically averred that the “model
answer key” which formed the basis for such evaluation was F
erroneous. One of the questions that, therefore, fell for consideration
by the High Court directly was whether the “model answer key”
was correct. The High Court had aptly referred that question to
experts in the field who, as already noticed above, found the “model
answer key” to be erroneous in regard to as many as 45 questions
out of a total of 100 questions contained in ‘A’ series question G
paper. Other errors were also found to which we have referred
earlier. If the key which was used for evaluating the answer sheets
was itself defective the result prepared on the basis of the same
could be no different. The Division Bench of the High Court was,
therefore, perfectly justified in holding that the result of the
H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 11 S.C.R.
A examination insofar as the same pertained to ‘A’ series question
paper was vitiated. This was bound to affect the result of the entire
examination qua every candidate whether or not he was a party
to the proceedings. It also goes without saying that if the result
was vitiated by the application of a wrong key, any appointment
made on the basis thereof would also be rendered unsustainable.
B
The High Court was, in that view, entitled to mould the relief prayed
for in the writ petition and issue directions considered necessary
not only to maintain the purity of the selection process but also to
ensure that no candidate earned an undeserved advantage over
others by application of an erroneous key.”
C In Rajesh Kumar (supra), the Court then refused the oust those
individuals from service who did not make the grade after re-valuation of
the result since they had been in service for nearly seven years. However,
in the present case, as we have discussed above, the revised result was
declared even before offers of appointment were made to the respondents
D since the entire process of recruitment had been put in abeyance.
17. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgements
delivered by the Delhi High Court on 6 December 2018 in Writ Petition
(C) No. 10143 of 2017 and on 19 December 2018 in Writ Petition (C)
No. 13052 of 2018 do not comport with law. The High Court has been
E manifestly in error in issuing a mandamus to the appellants to appoint the
respondents on the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police. The
direction was clearly contrary to law. The respondents have participated
in the selection process and upon the declaration of the revised result, it has
emerged before the Court that they have failed to obtain marks above
the cut-off for the OBC category to which they belong. We accordingly
F allow the appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court dated 6
December 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.10143 of 2017 and 19
December 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.13052 of 2018. Both the Writ
Petitions shall stand dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to
costs.
G 18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "public recruitment"Sign in to search