A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment examines the scope of vested rights in public employment and the limits of judicial intervention in recruitment processes when results are revised prior to appointment. The Supreme Court addressed whether candidates whose names appeared in a provisional select list, and who had completed medical and character verification, could claim an enforceable right to appointment after being excluded in a subsequently revised merit list. The controversy arose from a recruitment process initiated in 2013 for the post of Constable (Executive) – Male in the Delhi Police, which witnessed multiple cancellations, revisions, and re-evaluations owing to administrative lapses, including failure to award bonus marks for height and errors in answer keys.

The Court analysed whether the issuance of forms and completion of preliminary formalities amounted to a legitimate expectation or vested right. It reiterated the settled principle that mere inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, particularly when the recruitment process is still ongoing and subject to correction in accordance with law. The role of the Expert Committee and the necessity of revising results to maintain the integrity of the selection process were emphasised.

The Supreme Court disapproved the Delhi High Court’s issuance of a writ of mandamus directing appointment, holding such direction to be contrary to established service jurisprudence. The judgment reinforces constitutional discipline in public recruitment and clarifies that equity cannot override legality where revised merit positions fall below the prescribed cut-off.

Keywords:
Public Employment, Select List, Vested Right, Revised Result, Mandamus, Service Jurisprudence

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment arose from a prolonged and error-ridden recruitment process conducted by the Delhi Police for filling vacancies of Constable (Executive) – Male. The selection process, initiated through a public advertisement in January 2013, became contentious due to repeated cancellations of written examinations, incorrect application of recruitment norms, and flawed answer keys. These administrative lapses resulted in multiple revisions of results and extensive litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Delhi High Court, and eventually the Supreme Court of India.

A central background issue was the failure of the recruiting authority to award one bonus mark to candidates whose height exceeded 178 cm, as mandated by Standing Order No. 212 of 2011. This omission necessitated the first revision of results in July 2015. Subsequently, challenges to the correctness of the answer keys led to the constitution of an Expert Committee, whose report revealed typographical and substantive errors affecting evaluation.

The respondents were initially declared successful and had completed medical examinations and character verification. However, the recruitment process was expressly kept in abeyance, and no appointment letters were issued. Upon re-evaluation, the respondents failed to meet the revised cut-off marks for the OBC category and were excluded.

The Delhi High Court granted relief on equitable considerations, directing appointment. The Supreme Court was thus called upon to examine whether such judicial intervention was permissible when the respondents lacked a vested legal right under service law principles.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The recruitment process began with a notification dated 27 January 2013 for 523 vacancies of Constable (Executive) – Male. Candidates underwent physical tests, followed by multiple written examinations, two of which were cancelled. The final written examination was conducted on 16 November 2014.

A provisional result declared on 13 July 2015 selected 514 candidates. During scrutiny, it was discovered that bonus marks for height, mandated under Standing Order No. 212 of 2011, had not been awarded. Consequently, a revised result dated 17 July 2015 was issued. In this list, 32 new candidates were included and 34 candidates were excluded. The respondents continued to remain selected under the OBC category.

Candidates were issued forms for police verification and medical examination. The respondents completed these formalities and were declared medically fit. However, before any appointment letters could be issued, unsuccessful candidates challenged the answer keys before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

An Expert Committee was constituted, which found multiple errors in the answer keys, including void questions and incorrect options. Acting on this report, the recruitment authority revised the result again on 22 February 2016. The revised cut-off for OBC candidates increased substantially. The respondents scored below the revised cut-off and were ousted from the selection list.

Subsequent challenges before the Tribunal were dismissed. However, the Delhi High Court allowed the respondents’ writ petitions and directed their appointment, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether inclusion in a provisional select list confers a vested right to appointment?
ii. Whether issuance of verification and medical forms creates legitimate expectation enforceable in law?
iii. Whether courts can issue a writ of mandamus contrary to revised merit lists prepared in accordance with law?
iv. Whether revision of recruitment results prior to appointment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the recruitment process was lawfully revised following the findings of the Expert Committee. It was argued that mere inclusion in a select list does not confer an enforceable right, relying on Punjab SEB v. Malkiat Singh and Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India.

It was contended that the respondents failed to meet the revised cut-off marks and were ranked far below several candidates. The issuance of forms was described as a procedural step that did not culminate in appointment. The High Court’s reliance on equity was asserted to be legally impermissible in service matters.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents submitted that the respondents were not at fault and had successfully cleared all stages of selection initially. It was argued that issuance of documents and completion of verification amounted to a representation by the State, giving rise to legitimate expectation.

The respondents contended that grave prejudice was caused due to administrative lapses and that no higher-ranked candidates had approached the Court. The High Court’s directions were defended on equitable considerations.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 14, Constitution of India
ii. Article 16, Constitution of India
iii. Article 226, Constitution of India
iv. Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980
v. Standing Order No. 212 of 2011

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court held that the respondents had no vested right to appointment. The Court emphasised that the recruitment process had been kept in abeyance and no appointment letters were issued. Revision of results was undertaken to align the process with law after identifying errors.

The Court found that the High Court erred in issuing a writ of mandamus, as such direction was contrary to settled service law. The respondents’ exclusion was a direct consequence of lawful re-evaluation. Equity could not override statutory compliance or merit-based selection.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The core ratio is that mere inclusion in a select list, even after completion of medical and verification formalities, does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. Where recruitment is ongoing and results are revised before appointment, candidates excluded on merit cannot claim judicial protection. The Court reaffirmed principles laid down in Shankarsan Dash and Punjab SEB v. Malkiat Singh.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that recurring administrative lapses in public recruitment have become a systemic issue. It noted that diligence and responsibility by recruiting authorities could significantly reduce litigation. These observations, though not essential to the decision, reflect institutional concern.

c) GUIDELINES 

i. Recruitment authorities must correct errors before final appointments.
ii. Courts must refrain from issuing mandamus contrary to merit.
iii. Equity cannot be invoked to bypass statutory recruitment norms.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces doctrinal clarity in service jurisprudence. It draws a firm boundary between procedural participation and substantive entitlement. The Supreme Court’s reasoning preserves the sanctity of merit-based recruitment and prevents courts from unsettling lawful selection processes on sympathetic grounds. The decision strengthens administrative discipline and constitutional equality in public employment.

K) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 : [1991] 1 SCR 585
ii. Punjab SEB v. Malkiat Singh, (2005) 9 SCC 22 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 329
iii. Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 690 : [2013] 4 SCR 753

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India
ii. Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980
iii. Standing Order No. 212 of 2011