Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 440
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ.
Saket Kumar Sonu And Ors – Petitioners
Versus
Sashastra Seema Bal And Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 3500 of 2024 CM APPL. 14296 of 2024
Decided On : 19-06-2026
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ajay Garg, Mr. Uday Garg, Ms. Anusha Garg, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Farman Ali, SPC with Mr. Jitender Kumar Tripathi, GP and Ms. Usha Jamnal, Mr. Sumit Kumar Raj, Mrs. Anjali Dwivedi, Advocates.
In public recruitment, candidates who participate in a selection process with knowledge of the conditions are estopped from challenging them later. However, to ensure fairness and transparency, public authorities are mandated to provide candidates with access to their individual marks, ranks, and the category-specific cutoff thresholds.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Public employment - Recruitment process - Transparency and fairness - Candidates participating in a selection process with knowledge of rules are precluded from challenging conditions on grounds of waiver and acquiescence - Right to information regarding personal marks and category cutoffs is essential to ensure non-arbitrary recruitment. (Para 43)
(B) Evaluation - Merit-based selection - Non-disclosure of marks and category-wise cutoffs at successive stages of recruitment violates principles of fair play - Public authorities responsible for maintaining integrity in selection must publish candidate performance data. (Paras 15, 17, 40)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners participated in a recruitment drive for government posts. They challenged the selection process, alleging irregularities in the acceptance of category-specific certificates and non-disclosure of individual marks, ranks, and cutoff scores throughout the various stages of the examination. The respondents contended that the petitioners were unsuccessful as they failed to secure the required minimum cutoff marks, and that the verification process was conducted strictly as per the advertisement criteria.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the challenged certificates were scrutinised and the petitioners’ candidature was appropriately assessed based on the predefined criteria. Because the petitioners failed to meet the cutoff marks, their exclusion from the merit list was upheld. However, to ensure transparency and the right to information, the court directed the respondents to disclose the marks and ranks obtained by all candidates.
Issues: Whether the recruitment process was conducted with procedural fairness; whether mandatory disclosure of performance data is required; and whether the challenge to the advertisement conditions is maintainable after participation in the selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that candidates who participate in a recruitment process with full knowledge of the advertised conditions are barred from challenging those conditions subsequently. Nevertheless, public authorities have a legal duty to ensure transparency by making performance data, including individual marks and category-specific cutoffs, accessible to all applicants.
Result: Petition disposed of; respondents directed to disclose marks and ranks of all candidates within four weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of the factual recruitment process and notification parameters. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners' allegations of procedural irregularities and non-compliance with ews certification standards. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 3. respondent's justification for procedural flexibility in document verification and merit ranking. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. judicial assessment on mark disclosure and limiting relief to non-selected candidates below qualifying cut-offs. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“a. direct the respondents to declare the marks and ranks obtained by the petitioners in the Written Examination as well as the Skill Test and the marks obtained by the last selected candidates in EWS category in the Written Examination as well as the Skill Test in the recruitment process for the post of Constable in SSB-2020; and
b. direct the respondents to inquire into and rectify the irregularities committed in the selection process relating to the EWS category wherein the invalid EWS certificates of some of the candidates who have been declared selected have been accepted in the recruitment for Constable in SSB-2020; and
c. pass any other orders or directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The facts surrounding the present controversy are that the Sashastra Seema Bal (hereinafter ‘SSB’) / respondent no. 1 issued an advertisement on 28.07.2020 for recruitment to the post of constable of different trades in Group C category in the SSB. The category-wise division of the total vacancies as per the said advertisement are as under:
| Name of Post | UR | EWS | OBC | SC | ST | Total Vacancy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constable (Cook) Male | 123 | 23 | 40 | 25 | 21 | 232 |
| Constable (Driver) for male only | 148 | 36 | 114 | 245 | 31 | 574 |
| Constable (Water Carrier) Male | 44 | 10 | 27 | 14 | 6 | 101 |
3. The selection process was to be conducted in stages, i.e., (a) Physical Standard Test(PST)/ Physical Efficiency Test(PET); (b) Written Examination/Common Entrance Test (CET); (c)Documentation/Trade/Skill Test,; and (d) Medical Examination(DME)/ Review Medical Examination(RME).
SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
4. Mr. Ajay Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein, were the candidates who were to be recruited to posts in different trades, i.e. cook, driver and water carrier respectively, in the economically weaker section (EWS) category in Group C in the SSB/respondent no. 1.
5. He stated that clause 5(ii) of the advertisement which talks about the eligibility conditions, specified that the candidates must possess all requisite certificates within 30 days of the publication of the advertisement. Further, clause 6(iv) of the advertisement mandated the submission of income certificates of the EWS category candidates valid for the financial year prior to the year of application. For the year 2020-21, to which the advertisement pertained, the relevant year for the purpose of income certificates would be 2019-20. We reproduce the relevant clauses relied upon by the petitioners, as under:
Clause 5(ii)
“ii) The candidates must fulfill ali eligibility conditions for applied post and should be in possession of all certificates as on the last date of receipt of application i.e. 30 (thirty) days from the date of publication of this advertisement in the Employment News. Candidates appearing in the examination/awaiting result/ not in possession of educational certificates need not to apply.”
Clause 6(iv)
(iv) The candidates seeking relaxation under Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) and not covered under the scheme of reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs and whose family has gross annual income below Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakh only) are to be identified as EWSs for ben
