Supreme Court Upholds Service Preferences in Constable Recruitment: Union of India vs. Probir Ghosh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: February 17, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 147
Judges: Hemant Gupta, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. (authored the judgment)

Can the government reject a candidate for a job even if they scored higher marks than those selected, simply because they preferred a different job? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case regarding the recruitment of constables in various Central Armed Police Forces. The core issue revolved around whether candidates who specified a preference for a particular service could be excluded from consideration for other services, even if they had higher scores than those selected for those other services. This judgment clarifies the importance of adhering to the specific terms of a recruitment notification, particularly regarding service preferences.

Case Background

In 2011, the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued a notification for the recruitment of Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) like ITBP, BSF, CISF, CRPF, and SSB, and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. The initial number of vacancies was 39,574, later revised to 48,802. The recruitment process included a Physical Standards Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Written Examination, and Medical Examination. The application deadline was January 4, 2012, with an extension until January 11, 2012, for candidates from certain regions.

The notification specified that recruitment would be based on state-wise and category-wise reservations, including those for OBC, SC, and ST candidates, as well as for candidates from Naxal and militancy-affected areas and select border districts. Age relaxations were also provided for various categories. The vacancies were earmarked service-wise, state and union territory-wise, and intra-state-wise, including for Naxal-affected areas and border districts.

The recruitment notification included instructions for filling out the application, with a specific column (Column No. 16) for indicating service preferences. The notification stated that “Option once exercised will be final and no change will be allowed under any circumstances.” After the selection process, the SSC published a select list on October 17, 2012. Some candidates, finding their names missing from the list despite having higher scores than some selected candidates, filed writ petitions in the Gauhati High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Gauhati High Court initially allowed 15 writ petitions, and subsequently several other similar petitions, filed by candidates who were not selected. The Union of India and the Staff Selection Commission appealed these orders, but the Division Bench of the High Court refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal. This led to the Union of India and the SSC filing Civil Appeal No. 4585 of 2018 before the Supreme Court.

Additionally, a separate writ petition (WP(C) No. 6153 of 2013) was filed in the Gauhati High Court by a candidate whose appointment was canceled due to a domicile issue. The High Court allowed this petition, a decision that was upheld in review. The Union of India and the SSC filed Civil Appeals No. 4586-4587 of 2018 challenging this order.

A similar issue regarding service preference was raised in the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) No. 8571 of 2015), which was decided against the Union of India. The review petition was also dismissed. This led to the filing of SLP(C) Nos. 30408-30409 of 2019 before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of the legal framework in this case is based on the recruitment notification issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) on December 3, 2011. The notification outlined the entire process for recruiting constables in various Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Riflemen in Assam Rifles. Several key aspects of this notification are relevant:

• Reservations: The notification detailed the state-wise and category-wise reservations, including those for Other Backward Classes (OBC), Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST). It also included reservations for candidates from Naxal and militancy-affected areas and specific border districts.
• Service Preferences: Annexure II of the notification contained “Instructions for filling up the application.” Column No. 16 under paragraph 4.0 of these instructions specifically addressed “preference for posts,” stating:

  “Candidates should carefully indicate preference for post under different forces. Option once exercised will be final and no change will be allowed under any circumstances.”

• Domicile Certificates: The notification required candidates to submit domicile certificates of their respective states at the time of the medical examination. However, it was noted that Assam does not issue domicile certificates, and thus candidates from Assam were exempted, subject to verification of their residential status by the concerned District Authorities.
• Format of Certificates: The notification also prescribed specific formats for caste certificates to be produced by candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).

These provisions of the recruitment notification form the basis for the arguments and the court’s decision in this case. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of these provisions, particularly regarding the finality of service preferences, is central to the judgment.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court revolved around two main issues: (1) the rejection of OBC certificates not in the prescribed format and (2) the binding nature of service preferences indicated by candidates.

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (Union of India and Staff Selection Commission):

• OBC Certificate Format: The appellants argued that the candidates who submitted OBC certificates not in the format prescribed in Annexure-VII of the recruitment notification should be treated as general category candidates. They emphasized that the notification clearly stated that certificates must be in the prescribed format, and this was not a mere formality but a matter of substance.
• Service Preference: The appellants contended that candidates who indicated a preference for a particular service should be considered only for that service. They argued that the notification clearly stated that the option once exercised is final, and candidates cannot claim a right to be considered for other services even if they have higher marks than those selected in those other services.
• Domicile: The appellants argued that candidates belonging to a particular border district can only be considered for vacancies earmarked for that specific border district and not other border districts.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents (Candidates):

• OBC Certificate Format: The respondents argued that the rejection of their OBC certificates based on format was hyper-technical. They contended that the substance of the certificate, which was to prove their OBC status, was more important than the format. They also argued that they had no control over the format of the certificates issued by the State Government authorities.
• Service Preference: The respondents argued that the word “preference” should be interpreted as a mere indication of choice and not a rejection of other options. They contended that candidates should not be pinned down to their preferences, and those who secured higher marks should not be rejected in favor of those with lower marks, which would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. They relied on the decisions of the Patna High Court in Ram Bilash Ram vs. State of Bihar and others and the Allahabad High Court in Bindhyachal Kumar Singh vs. Union of India and others to support their argument.
• Domicile: The respondents argued that all border districts should be treated alike and that a person belonging to one border district should be considered for all border districts.

The innovativeness of the arguments on the respondents’ side lies in their attempt to interpret “preference” as a non-binding choice and to argue that strict adherence to the format of the certificate is unjust when the substance is not in dispute.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the rejection of the OBC certificate of a few candidates on the ground that they were not in the prescribed format and the consequent categorization of those candidates as general category candidates is correct?
2. Whether candidates who have indicated preference to a particular service can be kept out of consideration for appointment to other services, despite these candidates having secured more marks than the selected candidates in those other services?
3. Whether the domicile of a person in one particular border district will debar him from being considered for appointment in another border district?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities while deciding the case:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Union of India and the Staff Selection Commission, setting aside the orders of the Gauhati High Court and the Delhi High Court. The Court upheld the validity of the recruitment process followed by the SSC, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the terms of the recruitment notification.

The following table shows how the authorities were viewed by the Court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of upholding the terms and conditions of the recruitment notification. The Court emphasized that the notification clearly stated that service preferences were final and that the format of the OBC certificate was a matter of substance. The Court also considered the need to maintain the integrity of the recruitment process and to avoid any unfair advantage to candidates who tried to circumvent the rules.

The Court’s reasoning also highlighted the importance of not altering the rules of the game after the game has begun. The Court noted that the respondents had become wiser after the event and that allowing them to change their preferences or to be considered for other services would be unfair to other candidates who had followed the rules.

The Court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%). The legal considerations focused on the interpretation of the recruitment notification and the binding nature of service preferences, as well as the importance of following the prescribed format for OBC certificates.

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the argument that “preference” should be interpreted as a mere indication of choice. It emphasized that the notification clearly stated that the option once exercised was final. The Court also rejected the argument that the format of the OBC certificate was a mere formality, holding that the non-creamy layer status was a matter of substance.

The Court considered the decision in Union of India vs. M.V.V.S Murthy, which held that a candidate who preferred Indian Administrative Service and was selected for IPS could not claim IPS later when he could not make it in the subsequent year’s examination. The Court stated that this case clinches the issue.

The Court also distinguished the decisions of the Patna High Court in Ram Bilash Ram vs. State of Bihar and others and the Allahabad High Court in Bindhyachal Kumar Singh vs. Union of India and others, stating that the facts of those cases were different and that the instructions in the present case were very clear.

The Court noted that “the High Court was clearly wrong in granting relief to the respondents (i) by diluting the significance of preferences given by candidates; and (ii) in nullifying the effect of the instructions contained in Column No.16 of paragraph 4 of Annexure-II to the Recruitment Notification.”

Regarding the OBC certificates, the Court stated, “It is true that the power to issue caste certificates vests with the officers of the State Government and that there is no uniformity in this regard. Therefore, some leverage has to be given.” However, it also noted that “the indication regarding non-creamy layer status in the caste certificate is one of substance and not of form. The very eligibility to seek the benefit of reservation would depend upon the non-creamy layer status.”

The Court also stated that “Once vacancies are earmarked separately for different categories of border districts, even in the Recruitment Notification, it is not possible to hold that all border districts are to be treated alike.”

The Court concluded that “at this stage it is not possible to enter into disputed questions of fact and grant relief to those two respondents.”

The majority opinion was authored by Justice V. Ramasubramanian, and Justice Hemant Gupta concurred with the judgment. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Candidates must adhere strictly to the terms and conditions of recruitment notifications.
• Service preferences indicated in application forms are binding and cannot be changed later.
• The format of certificates, especially those related to reservations, is a matter of substance and not a mere formality.
• The courts will not interfere with recruitment processes unless there is a clear violation of law or procedure.
• Candidates belonging to a specific border district can only be considered for vacancies earmarked for that specific border district.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment. The appeals were allowed, and the orders of the High Courts were set aside.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the terms and conditions of a recruitment notification, especially regarding service preferences and the format of certificates, are binding on the candidates. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the rules of the game and clarifies that candidates cannot claim a right to be considered for other services or categories if they have not complied with the notification’s requirements. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Probir Ghosh clarifies that candidates must strictly adhere to the terms of recruitment notifications, particularly regarding service preferences and certificate formats. The Court emphasized that service preferences are binding and that the format of OBC certificates is a matter of substance, not mere formality. This decision reinforces the importance of following the rules and maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process.