The Allahabad High Court has directed King George's Medical University (KGMU) to calculate average interview marks from the surviving records of the same selection if the petitioner's marks cannot be verified, and then declare the result of her candidature.

The Court also observed that a recruitment process, once undertaken and candidates have participated in its prescribed stages, must be brought to a lawful conclusion. It held that the final result is an essential part of transparency in public recruitment and cannot be left undeclared merely because time has passed or old records have been lost.

Justice Irshad Ali held,

“..once a recruitment process has been undertaken and candidates have participated in the prescribed stages of selection, the competent authority is expected to bring the process to its lawful conclusion. The declaration of the final result is an essential component of transparency in public recruitment, as it enables the candidates to ascertain the outcome of their candidature and the authority to demonstrate that the selection has been completed in accordance with the applicable rules”.

An advertisement dated 11.01.2005 published in Dainik Jagran invited applications for Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts, including 40 posts of Junior Clerk/Typist. Petitioner took the typing test on 04.08.2005 bearing Roll No.10135 and appeared before the Interview Board on 29.10.2005, her roll number figuring at serial no.3 in a notification of 25.10.2005 listing the candidates called for interview.

No result followed. Petitioner pleaded that she learnt on 09.11.2005 that 21 of the 40 posts had been filled without any result being published, nine of them in the General Category, and alleging a pick-and-choose exercise sought declaration of the complete result. On 21.11.2005 the Court had directed that appointments made would abide by further orders.

During arguments she confined her case to declaration of the final result, not pressing appointment or reservation of a post. It was urged that having put her through the typing test and the interview, the respondents could not withhold the outcome indefinitely, and that non-declaration offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

King George's Medical University opposed the petition, submitting that under the Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002, as amended in 2003, the typing test was only a qualifying test and the select list was drawn up on aggregate marks under Rule 5(5).

It was argued that the notification of 25.10.2005 was merely a list of roll numbers of candidates called for interview, petitioner had secured 51.4 marks against 57.02 marks of the last selected candidate in the unreserved category, and the selection being of 2005, only such records as could be traced had been produced.

The Court accepted the University's objection to the limited extent that a candidate's place in the list of those called for interview cannot be treated as her place in the select list, but held that this did not dispose of the grievance. On the unfilled posts it declined to interfere, holding that an advertisement confers no indefeasible right to appointment and does not oblige the employer to fill every vacancy, a question distinct from whether the selection had to be lawfully concluded.

On the original records produced by the University, the Court found no final result of the selection on record at all, leaving the marks pleaded in the counter-affidavit unsupported.

“In the absence of the final select list or any contemporaneous documentary material substantiating the final outcome of the selection, the marks stated in the counter-affidavit cannot, by themselves, be treated as conclusive or accorded unquestionable credibility”.

A fresh interview or fresh recruitment after more than two decades being neither practical nor necessary for the limited relief pressed, the Court held that the gap had to be filled objectively rather than by guesswork.

“the deficiency cannot be addressed through an arbitrary or speculative assessment. In such circumstances, awarding average interview marks, calculated on an objective and verifiable basis from the relevant available records of the same selection, would constitute a corrective measure directed at completing the result rather than conferring an automatic right to appointment”.

The Court accordingly directed the University to examine the available records and, if petitioner's interview marks cannot be ascertained from reliable surviving records, to award her average interview marks from the available interview records of candidates in the same selection, recording the calculation and its basis in writing. Her aggregate is then to be worked out under the rules and the result declared with reasons, within three months of production of a certified copy of the order.

Clarifying that the direction is confined to declaration of petitioner's result and is not a direction to appoint her, to fill all 40 posts or to disturb appointments already made, the Court disposed of the writ petition.