Delhi High Court: ST Tag Doesn't Guarantee Experience Relaxation in SFIO Prosecutor Hiring

In a ruling that underscores the sanctity of recruitment cut-off dates, the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition by Anant Kumar Rao, a Scheduled Tribe (ST) law graduate challenging his rejection for a prosecutor role in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order, affirming the Union Public Service Commission's (UPSC) decision. The court clarified that discretionary relaxation powers for SC/ST candidates do not create an enforceable right, especially when claimed experience falls short of litigation requirements.

From Corporate Contracts to Courtroom Dreams: The Application That Fell Short

The saga began with UPSC Advertisement No. 18/2022, seeking prosecutors for SFIO under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Candidates with a five-year integrated law degree needed two years' experience in handling litigation, court matters, or law administration in a government organization . Relaxations were possible at UPSC's discretion for well-qualified candidates or SC/ST if insufficient eligible applicants from reserved categories emerged— reasons to be recorded in writing .

Rao, holding such a degree, applied by the October 13, 2022, deadline. His Online Recruitment Application (ORA) claimed 2 years, 7 months at Willard Advisory Pvt. Ltd., detailing duties like drafting contracts, NDAs, IP agreements, and some criminal cases on forgery . Post-deadline, he submitted certificates for prior stints (e.g., with Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Deepak Chauhan & Associates) and later work with an Additional Advocate General—none fully claimed in the ORA or backed timely.

UPSC rejected him in 2025, citing lack of admissible experience: Willard work wasn't in a government body or litigation-focused; others were unclaimed, uncertified as on cut-off, or post-deadline. Rao approached CAT, which allowed provisional participation but ultimately dismissed his Original Application on July 23, 2025. He then filed this writ under Article 226.

Petitioner's Plea: 'Count My Experience, Grant Relaxation'

Rao's counsel, led by Dr. Kamini Lau, argued his ST status warranted relaxation under advertisement Notes I and II. They urged treating Willard experience as compliant, noting no mandate for court appearances, and claimed bona fide ORA omissions shouldn't bar him. Post-cut-off certificates, they said, should be considered given his overall qualifications.

UPSC's Defense: Cut-Off Dates Are Ironclad, Experience Must Fit the Bill

Respondents, represented for UPSC and government, stood firm: Eligibility hinges on ORA disclosures as on October 13, 2022. Willard's private-sector contract drafting lacked government/law administration nexus and court handling. Duties explicitly require assisting prosecutions, filing complaints in courts, coordinating counsel, and tracking cases —a rational match for required experience. Discretionary relaxations aren't automatic; no arbitrariness in denial.

Drawing Lines in the Sand: Court's Scrutiny of Recruitment Realities

The bench emphasized judicial review's limits in Article 226 writs: interference only for mala fides, arbitrariness, or illegality—not substituting UPSC's assessment as a constitutional recruiter. Rao's disclosed experience was corporate compliance-heavy, sans court appearances or government tie-up , misaligning with SFIO duties.

Echoing the Supreme Court's Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan (2011) 12 SCC 85, the court stressed scrupulous adherence to advertisement schedules . "There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such power is specifically reserved... Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16."

Post-cut-off submissions undermine equality; ST status alone doesn't trigger relaxation without UPSC recording reasons. No evidence showed insufficient reserved candidates or arbitrary refusal.

As noted in reports, the court highlighted: "SC/ST candidates have no right to relaxation in SFIO prosecutor appointment criteria," with petitioner's experience limited to "drafting and vetting of commercial contracts, but not court appearances."

Key Observations

"The experience requirement, therefore, bears a rational nexus with the functional responsibilities of the post. In that context, the view taken by the recruiting agency that the experience disclosed by the Petitioner did not satisfy the essential requirement cannot be said to be irrational, arbitrary or perverse." (Para 15)

"Permitting candidates to improve or supplement their eligibility after the cut-off date would introduce uncertainty and inequality into the selection process and would be contrary to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." (Para 17)

"Note-I and Note-II appended to the advertisement, confer a discretionary power upon the UPSC to relax the qualifications... Such a provision does not vest an enforceable right in any candidate to claim relaxation as a matter of course." (Para 18)

"The selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure... There cannot be any relaxation... unless such a power is specifically reserved." (Quoting Bedanga Talukdar, Para 16)

No Reprieve: Petition Dismissed, Standards Upheld

The writ petition stands dismissed, with pending applications disposed. This reinforces UPSC's autonomy in eligibility scrutiny, prioritizing ORA integrity and experience-job fit. Future applicants, especially from reserved categories, must front-load complete claims; discretionary relaxations remain just that—discretionary. For SFIO roles demanding courtroom prowess, private drafting won't suffice without proven litigation chops.