Supreme Court Upholds Revised Merit List Based on Re-evaluation for Private Secretary Posts: Sunil & Ors. vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors. (28 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 459
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Sanjay Karol, J.

Can a merit list be revised to reflect the correct marks of candidates after a re-evaluation process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of Private Secretaries at the High Court of Delhi. The court examined whether candidates whose marks were increased after re-evaluation should be placed higher in the merit list, impacting their seniority. This judgment clarifies the importance of merit in selection processes and the implications of re-evaluation.

Case Background

In 2016, the High Court of Delhi initiated a recruitment process to fill 27 vacant posts of Private Secretaries. A written examination was conducted on July 4, 2016, followed by skill and typing tests on July 5, 2016. The results of the written examination were declared on December 22, 2016. Before the final merit list was released, some candidates requested a re-evaluation of their answer sheets, which was initially rejected. Interviews were conducted on January 19 and 25, 2017, and the final merit list was published on January 30, 2017, leading to the appointment of 27 candidates. Subsequently, several candidates who obtained copies of their answer sheets requested a re-evaluation, which led to a series of legal challenges and committee reviews.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the High Court directed the Acting Chief Justice to independently review the evaluation process after some candidates raised concerns. A Special Committee was formed, which decided to limit the re-evaluation to 13 candidates. Following the re-evaluation, the marks of all 13 candidates increased. The Acting Chief Justice then decided to appoint candidates who qualified based on the re-evaluation against existing vacancies, without disturbing the positions of the 27 candidates already appointed. The Special Committee initially recommended placing the newly appointed candidates at the bottom of the seniority list. However, after representations from the affected candidates, the committee decided to grant notional seniority based on the revised marks. This decision was challenged in the High Court, which ultimately set aside the revised merit lists, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the Delhi High Court (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1972, which did not have a provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets. The High Court’s decision to allow re-evaluation was an exceptional measure taken due to the circumstances. The core issue revolved around the principle of merit-based selection and how to accommodate the re-evaluated marks within the existing framework of appointments and seniority.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Candidates whose marks increased after re-evaluation):

• The appellants argued that they were initially not selected due to incorrect marking. After re-evaluation, they secured higher marks than the last selected candidate, entitling them to a higher rank in the merit list, which determines seniority for future promotions.
• They contended that the Special Committee rightly decided to grant seniority based on the revised marks. They argued that the High Court erred in placing them at the bottom of the seniority list despite upholding their appointment from January 30, 2017.
• The appellants pointed out that the respondents did not seek re-evaluation despite being aware of the flawed marking and the ongoing re-evaluation process for 13 candidates. They were also aware that the re-evaluation was closed vide order dated 30.08.2017.
• They argued that the High Court had upheld their appointment from January 30, 2017, and they should receive the benefit of their revised marks.
• The appellants argued that the re-evaluation exercise was carried out to give the benefit of rank based on merits. If there was no intention to grant inter se seniority based on marks, there would have been no reason to admit the 5 already selected candidates to the process of re-evaluation.
• They submitted that the Acting Chief Justice had noted that there were 22 vacancies in the post of Private Secretary and there was no difficulty with regard to appointment of those who stand qualified upon the limited re-evaluation.
• They argued that the respondents’ prayers were conflicting, seeking re-evaluation while also trying to quash the revised merit list.

Arguments by the Respondents (Candidates initially appointed):

• The respondents argued that they were not given an opportunity for re-evaluation, which was a special concession given to the appellants. They contended that if re-evaluation was permitted, it should have been extended to all candidates.
• They argued that partial re-evaluation led to anomalies, as the marks of all 13 candidates increased. They gave an example of how one of the respondents was awarded 0 marks for an answer, while the appellants were awarded 2 marks for the same answer after re-evaluation.
• The respondents highlighted that the Acting Chief Justice had noted that an unfortunate situation had arisen due to partial re-evaluation and ideally all papers should have been re-evaluated.
• They submitted that the Special Committee initially decided that the ranks awarded vide the 1st Merit List would not be disturbed and the newly selected candidates would be placed at the bottom of the select list.
• The respondents argued that the appellants had accepted conditional appointment, agreeing to be placed at the bottom of the original select list.
• They contended that the appellants were given appointments against future vacancies, and that the special concession cannot override vested rights.
• They relied on decisions of the Supreme Court which stated that seniority can only be granted from the date a candidate is borne in the cadre and not retrospectively.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellants, whose marks were increased after re-evaluation, are entitled to be ranked in accordance with the revised marks in the merit list, which determines their seniority for future promotions?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The decision in K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. Vs. Ningam Siro & Ors. (2020) 5 SCC 689* was distinguished because it dealt with seniority between promotees and direct recruits, not the correction of errors in a merit list.
• The decision in Nani Shah and Ors. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., (2007) 15 SCC 406* was distinguished because it dealt with seniority can only be granted from the date a candidate is borne in the cadre and not retrospectively.
• The decision in State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 720* was distinguished because it dealt with seniority can only be granted from the date a candidate is borne in the cadre and not retrospectively.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that merit should be the basis for selection and seniority. The Court emphasized that the re-evaluation process was a correction of an error in the original merit list, and the candidates whose marks were increased should be given the benefit of their revised scores. The court also noted that the respondents did not challenge the re-evaluation process at the appropriate time, and therefore, could not claim that the re-evaluation was unfair to them.

“At the relevant time, none of the selected candidates (22 candidates – respondents herein) applied for re-evaluation and even challenged the decision of the Special Committee to re-evaluate the marks of only 13 candidates.”

“Once on re-evaluation, the marks are increased the respective candidates whose marks are increased will have to be placed at appropriate place in the merit list.”

“There was no fault on the part of the appellants. It was because of the wrong marking at the relevant time they were deprived of the appointments and they were not placed in the merit list and as such was required to be corrected on the revision of the marks on re-evaluation.”

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the argument that seniority should only be granted from the date a candidate is borne in the cadre, stating that the re-evaluation was essentially a correction of the original select list. The Court also rejected the High Court’s decision to place the re-evaluated candidates at the bottom of the seniority list, emphasizing that this would render the re-evaluation process meaningless.

Key Takeaways

• Merit should be the primary basis for selection and seniority.
• Re-evaluation processes are meant to correct errors and should be given their due effect.
• Candidates who benefit from a re-evaluation should be placed at the appropriate position in the merit list.
• Failure to challenge a decision at the appropriate time can weaken subsequent claims.

This judgment reinforces the importance of merit in public service appointments and ensures that candidates are not disadvantaged due to errors in the evaluation process. It also highlights the need for candidates to be proactive in challenging decisions they believe are incorrect.

Directions

The Supreme Court restored the decision of the Special Committee dated 01.10.2018 and held that the appellants shall be entitled to the notional seniority w.e.f. 30.01.2017 in accordance with the revised marks on re-evaluation.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a re-evaluation process results in an increase in marks, the affected candidates are entitled to be placed at the appropriate position in the merit list, impacting their seniority, and that such a re-evaluation is essentially a correction of the original select list. This case clarifies that seniority should be determined by merit, and that re-evaluation is meant to correct errors and should be given its due effect.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court upheld the Special Committee’s decision to grant notional seniority based on the revised marks, emphasizing that the re-evaluation was a correction of an error, and the candidates should not be deprived of their rightful place in the merit list. This judgment underscores the importance of merit in selection processes and ensures that re-evaluation processes are not rendered meaningless.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories:

• Recruitment
• Merit List
• Seniority
• Re-evaluation
• Delhi High Court (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1972

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether candidates whose marks increased after re-evaluation should be placed higher in the merit list, affecting their seniority.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that candidates whose marks increased after re-evaluation are entitled to be placed at the appropriate position in the merit list, impacting their seniority.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court overturn the High Court’s decision?
A: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision because it found that the High Court’s order to place the re-evaluated candidates at the bottom of the seniority list would render the re-evaluation process meaningless.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment clarifies that merit should be the basis for selection and seniority, and that re-evaluation processes should be given their due effect to correct errors in the original merit list.

Q: What should candidates do if they feel their answer sheets were incorrectly evaluated?
A: Candidates should promptly raise their concerns and challenge the evaluation process at the appropriate time to ensure their grievances are addressed.