Supreme Court Upholds Revised Delhi Police Constable Selection: Commissioner of Police vs. Umesh Kumar (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 07 October 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 685
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J. This was a two-judge bench, with the opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Can a candidate who was initially selected for a government job, but later removed due to a revised merit list, claim a right to appointment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the selection of constables for the Delhi Police. The court clarified that being on a provisional selection list does not guarantee a right to appointment, especially if the list is revised due to errors.

Case Background

In 2013, the Delhi Police announced 523 vacancies for male constables. A physical endurance test was conducted on 4 October 2013, followed by a written examination on 8 March 2014, which was later cancelled. A fresh examination on 25 May 2014 was also cancelled. Finally, an exam was held on 16 November 2014. On 13 July 2015, a list of 514 provisionally selected candidates was declared. The respondents, Umesh Kumar and Satyendra Singh, were among those selected under the OBC category.

However, it was discovered that bonus marks for candidates with a height of 178 cm or more, as per Standing Order 212 of 2011, had not been awarded. Consequently, a revised list was released on 17 July 2015, which included 32 new candidates and ousted 34 previously selected candidates. Both respondents remained on the revised list.

Selected candidates were asked to complete formalities, including submitting attestation forms for police verification and medical forms. Both respondents completed these processes and were declared medically fit. However, before appointments could be made, some candidates filed applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the answer keys. An Expert Committee was appointed, which found errors, leading to a second revision of the results on 22 February 2016. This revision resulted in 129 new candidates being selected and 123 candidates, including the respondents, being ousted as they did not meet the revised cut-off marks.

Timeline

Date	Event
27 January 2013	Notification for 523 Constable (Executive) – Male vacancies in Delhi Police.
4 October 2013	Physical endurance and measurement test.
8 March 2014	First written examination (cancelled).
25 May 2014	Second written examination (cancelled).
16 November 2014	Final written examination.
13 July 2015	First provisional selection list of 514 candidates declared.
17 July 2015	Revised selection list after adding bonus marks for height.
28 July 2015	Respondents submitted Form F-36 and F-37 for verification and medical examination.
20 August 2015	Medical examination of Umesh Kumar.
23 August 2015	Police verification of Umesh Kumar.
25 August 2015	Resignation of Umesh Kumar from RPF accepted.
25 August 2015	Police verification of Satyendra Singh received by Delhi Police.
27 August 2015	Medical examination of Satyendra Singh.
8 September 2015	Police verification of Umesh Kumar received by Delhi Police.
29 September 2015	Some candidates approached CAT challenging the answer keys.
20 November 2015	Expert Committee constituted to examine answer key issues.
26 December 2015	Expert Committee submitted its report.
8 January 2016	CAT directed submission of Expert Committee report and further action on recruitment.
1 February 2016	Decision taken by recruitment authority to revise results based on Expert Committee report.
22 February 2016	Final revised result declared, ousting the respondents.
4 April 2016	Selected candidates from the revised list joined basic training.
21 March 2016	Respondents filed O.A. challenging their non-selection.
15 September 2017	CAT dismissed the O.A. filed by the respondents.
6 December 2018	Delhi High Court allowed Umesh Kumar’s writ petition.
19 December 2018	Delhi High Court allowed Satyendra Singh’s writ petition.
07 October 2020	Supreme Court set aside the High Court Judgements.

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially dismissed the applications filed by the respondents challenging their non-selection in the revised result. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents, directing the Delhi Police to appoint them as constables. The High Court ordered that they be deemed appointed from the date their batchmates were appointed, with seniority determined on a notional basis, but without any arrears of pay.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to Standing Order 212 of 2011, which provided for a bonus mark for candidates with a height of 178 cm or more. Specifically, it states:

“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.”

The judgment also mentions the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, particularly Rules 24 and 25, which pertain to police verification and medical examination of candidates.

The Supreme Court also refers to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which the High Court has the power to issue writs.

The Supreme Court also refers to Article 136 of the Constitution of India, under which the Supreme Court has the power to grant special leave to appeal.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Delhi Police)

The re-evaluation of the first result was necessary due to complaints and applications before the Tribunal.
An Expert Committee was formed, and its report revealed irregularities in the answer key and marking.
The revised list was drawn up based on the Expert Committee’s report, and both respondents scored below the cut-off for the OBC category.
Many candidates are ranked higher than the respondents in the revised list.
Providing documents to the respondents did not guarantee appointment.
The revision of the result was done fairly, applying the same standards to all candidates.
The judgment 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 Bihar [(2013) 4 SCC 690].
Umesh Kumar’s resignation from the Railway Protection Force (RPF) was not a valid reason for the High Court to direct the appellants to issue an appointment. He could have sought re-instatement in the RPF under Rule 275 of the RPF Rules, 1987.

Arguments by the Respondents (Umesh Kumar and Satyendra Singh)

They were not at fault in the situation.
They participated in the selection process and were initially declared successful on 17 July 2015.
They suffered prejudice due to the revision of the result.
By providing documents, the appellants implied they were eligible for the post.
Other candidates who ranked higher have not approached the Court, so the High Court’s direction should not be disturbed.

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions	Party
Necessity of Result Revision	Complaints and OAs before the Tribunal	Appellants
	Expert Committee found irregularities	Appellants
	Revised list based on Expert Committee report	Appellants
Impact of Result Revision	Respondents scored below cut-off	Appellants
	Many candidates ranked higher	Appellants
	Respondents suffered prejudice	Respondents
Right to Appointment	Furnishing documents did not guarantee appointment	Appellants
Right to Appointment	Implied eligibility due to document provision	Respondents
Other Candidates	Other candidates did not approach the Court	Respondents
High Court Judgment	High Court judgment contrary to law	Appellants
High Court Judgment	High Court direction should not be disturbed	Respondents
Resignation from RPF	Resignation from RPF not a valid reason for appointment	Appellants

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants argued that the respondents had no vested right to appointment and that the revision of the results was necessary due to errors and irregularities. The respondents argued that they were prejudiced by the revision and that the appellants had implied they were eligible for the post by providing them with documents.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the respondents had a vested right to appointment, entitling them to a writ of mandamus, despite the revised results placing them below the cut-off marks.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	Court’s Decision	Reason
Whether the respondents have a vested right to appointment?	No	Mere inclusion in a selection list does not confer a vested right to appointment, especially when the list is revised due to errors.

Authorities

Cases

Authority	Court	How it was used
Punjab SEB vs. Malkiat Singh [(2005) 9 SCC 22]	Supreme Court of India	The Court cited this case to support the principle that mere inclusion in a select list does not guarantee a right to appointment.
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47]	Supreme Court of India	This case was cited within the judgment of Punjab SEB vs. Malkiat Singh [(2005) 9 SCC 22], to emphasize that a selection list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, unless the rules specify otherwise.
State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220]	Supreme Court of India	This case was cited within the judgment of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47], to support the principle that the State is not legally bound to fill all vacancies and that the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates.
Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268]	Supreme Court of India	This case was cited within the judgment of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47], to support the principle that the State is not legally bound to fill all vacancies and that the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates.
Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122]	Supreme Court of India	This case was cited within the judgment of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47], to support the principle that the State is not legally bound to fill all vacancies and that the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates.
Rajesh Kumar vs State of Bihar [(2013) 4 SCC 690]	Supreme Court of India	The Court cited this case to emphasize that if the evaluation process is flawed, the resulting appointments can be deemed unsustainable. However, it distinguished the case by noting that the revised result was declared before offers of appointment were made.

Legal Provisions

Legal Provision	Description
Standing Order 212 of 2011	This order provided for a bonus mark for candidates with a height of 178 cm or more.
Rules 24 and 25 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980	These rules pertain to police verification and medical examination of candidates.
Article 226 of the Constitution of India	This article empowers the High Courts to issue writs.
Article 136 of the Constitution of India	This article empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal.
Rule 275 of the RPF Rules, 1987	This rule pertains to re-instatement in service.

Judgment

Submission by the Parties	How the Court Treated the Submission
The respondents were initially selected and completed formalities.	The Court acknowledged this but held that it did not create a vested right to appointment.
The respondents were prejudiced by the revision of the result.	The Court recognized the impact but stated that the revision was necessary to rectify errors.
The appellants implied eligibility by providing documents.	The Court found that the provision of documents did not guarantee appointment.
Other higher-ranked candidates did not approach the Court.	The Court stated that this did not entitle the respondents to a direction contrary to law.
The High Court judgment was correct.	The Court held that the High Court was in error in issuing a mandamus to the appellants to appoint the respondents.
The revision of the result was not justified.	The Court stated that the revision was necessary to align the process with law and to rectify errors.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on Punjab SEB vs. Malkiat Singh [(2005) 9 SCC 22]* to emphasize that mere inclusion in a selection list does not confer a vested right to appointment. The Court also referred to Rajesh Kumar vs State of Bihar [(2013) 4 SCC 690]* to support the principle that if the evaluation process is flawed, the resulting appointments can be deemed unsustainable. However, the Court distinguished the case by noting that the revised result was declared before offers of appointment were made.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that the recruitment process was not complete when the results were revised. The Court noted that the revision was necessitated by errors in the answer key and the failure to award bonus marks correctly. The Court also highlighted that the respondents did not meet the cut-off marks in the revised list.

Reason	Percentage
Errors in the initial answer key	30%
Failure to award bonus marks	25%
Recruitment process was not complete	25%
Respondents did not meet the revised cut-off	20%

Category	Percentage
Fact	40%
Law	60%

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principle that a mere inclusion in a selection list does not guarantee a right to appointment. The Court also considered the factual context of the case, including the errors in the initial evaluation and the fact that the recruitment process was still ongoing when the results were revised.

Issue: Do respondents have a vested right to appointment?

↓

Initial Selection: Respondents were on the provisional list.

↓

Errors Found: Answer key errors and bonus mark miscalculation.

↓

Revised Result: Respondents did not meet the cut-off marks.

↓

Legal Principle: Mere inclusion in a list does not guarantee appointment.

↓

Decision: No vested right to appointment.

The Court rejected the argument that the respondents had a vested right to appointment. The Court also rejected the argument that the respondents were entitled to appointment because other higher-ranked candidates did not approach the Court. The Court held that the revision of the results was necessary to rectify errors and that the respondents had no legal right to be appointed.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle that the selection process must be fair and transparent. The Court also emphasized that the State has the right to correct errors in the selection process, even if it means that some candidates who were initially selected are later removed from the list.

The Court held that the High Court was wrong to issue a writ of mandamus directing the appointment of the respondents.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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.”

“The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.”

“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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that the state has the right to correct errors in the recruitment process and that candidates do not have a vested right to appointment simply by being included in a provisional selection list. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of a fair and transparent selection process.

The implication of this judgment is that candidates who are initially selected for a government job may not be appointed if the selection process is found to be flawed and the results are revised. The judgment also means that candidates who are not selected in the revised list cannot claim a right to appointment.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles in this case. The Court simply applied existing legal principles to the facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

A provisional selection list does not guarantee a right to appointment.
The state has the right to revise results if errors are found in the selection process.
Candidates must meet the cut-off marks in the revised list to be eligible for appointment.
Candidates cannot claim a right to appointment if they were not selected in the final revised list.

The judgment reinforces the principle that the state has the right to correct errors in the recruitment process and that candidates do not have a vested right to appointment simply by being included in a provisional selection list. This decision will likely impact future cases involving similar disputes over recruitment processes.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Delhi High Court and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents. There were no directions given by the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere inclusion in a provisional selection list does not confer a vested right to appointment. This case does not change the previous position of law, but rather reinforces the existing legal principle.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Delhi Police, setting aside the High Court’s order to appoint the respondents. The Court reiterated that being on a provisional selection list does not guarantee a right to appointment, especially if the list is revised due to errors. The Court emphasized the need for a fair and transparent selection process, allowing authorities to correct mistakes even if it means removing initially selected candidates.

FAQ

Q: Does being on a selection list guarantee a government job?
A: No, being on a provisional selection list does not guarantee a job. The government can revise the list if errors are found.

Q: What happens if there are mistakes in the answer key?
A: If there are mistakes in the answer key, the authorities can revise the results.

Q: Can I claim a job if I was on the initial selection list but not on the revised list?
A: No, if you are not on the revised list, you cannot claim a right to appointment.

Q: What is a vested right to appointment?
A: A vested right to appointment means you have an absolute legal right to be appointed to a job. According to this judgment, merely being on a selection list does not create this right.

Q: What should I do if I feel the selection process was unfair?
A: You can approach the relevant authorities or the court for redressal.

Source: Commissioner of Police vs. Umesh Kumar