Non-Publication Of Marks Of Unsuccessful Candidates Wouldn't Raise An Inference That They Passed Examination : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that where the recruitment rules or the advertisement do not provide for disclosure or publication of candidates' marks, a candidate whose name does not figure in the merit list cannot claim appointment solely on the ground that his or her marks were not disclosed.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard an appeal filed by Durgapur Steel Plant challenging the Calcutta High Court's direction to consider the respondents for appointment to the post of Plant Attendant. The High Court had issued the direction on the ground that the appellant, which had entrusted the recruitment examination to an independent agency, published only the select list of successful candidates without disclosing the marks or results of the remaining candidates, including the respondents.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Aradhe observed that in the absence of a mandate to publish the marks of the candidates, neither an adverse inference can be drawn against the recruiter that they had deliberately excluded the other candidates from selection, nor can an inference be drawn that the candidates had passed the exam.

“In the present case, neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement required the publication of the marks obtained by all the candidates, who appeared in the written examination. It is not the case of the respondents that they had passed the examination. There is no material on record to indicate that the respondents had passed in the written examination. Merely because the respondents (candidates) were not shown to have failed, no inference could be drawn that they had passed the written examination.”, the Court observed.

“The written examination was conducted through an independent agency. Neither the rules nor the advertisement prescribed the duration for which the records of the selection process were to be preserved. Therefore, the explanation of the appellants for nonproduction of the record that the same were unavailable or had been destroyed appears to be bona fide. Mere non-production of such records does not justify drawing an inference that the respondents had cleared the written test. Mere non-production of such records does not justify drawing an inference that the respondents had cleared the written test.”, the court added.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, thereby setting aside the directions issued by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court requiring the appointment of the respondents.

Headnote

Service Law – Selection Process – Appointment – Indefeasible Right – Preservation of Records – Adverse Inference - No Indefeasible Right to Appointment - The State or its instrumentalities, while filling vacancies, are obligated to adhere to the principle of comparative merit based on performance - It is well-settled law that even if a candidate's name appears in a select list, they do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment in the absence of a specific rule entitling them to such appointment - Where neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement prescribed a duration for preserving selection records, the non-production or destruction of records after the finalization of appointments cannot be deemed mala fide - Mere non-production of examination records does not justify drawing an inference that the candidates had cleared the written test, especially when there is no material on record to indicate they had passed - A direction for appointment cannot be granted when the qualifications for the advertised post have subsequently been revised by the employer. [Relied on Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh & Ors., (1993) 1 SCC 15; Mohd. Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 582 [Para 13]; State of Manipur & Anr. v. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei & Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 331; Para 13-18]

Cause Title: DURGAPUR STEEL PLANT & ORS. VERSUS BIDHAN CHANDRA CHOWDHURY & ORS. (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 481

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Ms. Rashika Swarup, Adv. Mr. Naman Jain, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR Ms. Manisha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Reegan S Bel, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kushwaha, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, Adv.