The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) arising from the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) examination conducted in 2012. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), ruling that a candidate has no vested right to seek appointment merely on the ground that vacancies exist, especially when the candidate fails to meet the revised cut-off marks.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Satinder Pal, appeared for the SSC examination in 2012 for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive). He secured 299 marks. Initially, the cut-off for his category was 295.50. However, following litigation in OA No. 917/2013, the cut-off was enhanced to 297.50.
Subsequently, the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner on June 11, 2014, alleging copying during the examination. Parallel to these proceedings, another application (OA No. 1812/2013) filed by other candidates led to a further upward revision of the cut-off marks to 300.
On March 15, 2018, the respondents declared the final result wherein the petitioner was declared ‘fail’ as his score of 299 fell short of the second revised cut-off of 300. The petitioner challenged this result before the Tribunal in OA No. 4081/2018, which was dismissed vide judgment dated December 22, 2023. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Arguments Raised
The counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sachin Chauhan, argued that several candidates who had secured marks lower than the petitioner were appointed in the year 2014, prior to the decision in OA No. 1812/2013.
Furthermore, it was contended that the respondents currently have approximately 200 vacancies for the same post which remain unfilled, and thus the petitioner should be considered for appointment.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court observed that the petitioner’s marks (299) were admittedly lower than the final revised cut-off of 300. The Bench also noted the undisputed fact that a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner regarding allegations of cheating.
Regarding the petitioner’s claim that candidates with lower marks were appointed, the Court clarified that those appointments were made in furtherance of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. vs. State (SLP (C) 26431-26432/2011). The Court distinguished the petitioner’s case, noting:
“The Petitioner has also failed to show that the selected candidates were similarly situated, inasmuch as it has not been shown that they were also issued show cause notices akin to that issued to the Petitioner in the year 2014.”
Addressing the argument regarding the existence of 200 vacancies, the Court reiterated the settled legal position regarding the rights of a candidate. The Bench observed:
“It is well settled that the filling up of vacancies lies within the exclusive domain of the employer, and no candidate has vested right to seek appointment merely on the ground that vacancies exist.”
The Court emphasized that the scope of judicial review in recruitment matters is limited. It stated that directions to fill vacancies cannot be issued unless a “legal or constitutional infirmity or unlawful parity is demonstrated.”
Finally, the Court expressed reluctance to reopen a recruitment process that commenced 14 years ago.
“At this distance of time, and particularly in absence of any patent illegality or arbitrariness on behalf of the Respondents, this Court finds no justification to reopen or adjudicate upon the said recruitment process in the year 2026, particularly when the marks obtained by the Petitioner are less than the final revised cut-off marks.”
Decision
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed the writ petition along with any pending applications.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Satinder Pal vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
- Case Number: W.P.(C) 16782/2025
