Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 995
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, Shalinder Kaur, JJ
KALU RAM SAINI – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 9899/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ashish Nischal
For the Respondents: Ms. Arti Bansal, Mr. Kamal Digpaul, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Shantanu Shukla, Mr. Anand Singh, Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Ms. Ankita Patnaik
Age should be a determining factor for rank in tie situations during civil service promotions when explicit tie-breaker rules are missing.
Headnote:(A) Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - Promotion and appointment procedures within the CISF - Dispute arises regarding the tie-breaker criteria for candidates with equal marks. The court examines the validity of basing the tie-breaker on age rather than marks, finding that seniority based on age is a fair determination when the notification lacks a specific tie-breaker clause. The court draws upon precedent set in Amresh Shukla v. Directorate General, CISF & Anr. (2022 SCC OnLine Del 3154), affirming the need for clarity in such appointments. The matter concluded with the petitioner being declared as selected for the role of Assistant Commandant (Exe) with seniority over the last recommended candidate. (Paras 25-30)
(B) Seniority in civil service promotions - The determination of seniority between candidates of equal marks must consider age as a primary criterion where explicit rules are absent to govern tie situations. The contradiction in established procedures prompts a call for consistent application of policy across similar recruitment exercises. (Para 17)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's qualifications and claims in civil service examination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding tie-breaking criteria and age consideration. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. court's analysis of existing tie-breaker rules and principles. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. final decision regarding appointment and seniority. (Para 25 , 26 , 28 , 30) |
JUDGMENT
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs: -
“i. Writ of Mandamus be issued to Quash and set aside the answer key qua question no. 42 and 84, under series to the CISF AC (Executive) LDCE 2019;
ii. Writ of Mandamus be issued to the respondents to consider and appointment the petitioner as Assistant Commandant (Executive), CISF, under CISF AC (Executive) LDCE 2019 with all consequential benefits;
iii. Writ of Mandamus be issued to prepare the reserve/waiting list for the post of Assistant Commandant, CISF for CISF AC (Executive) LDCE 2019.”
Case of the Petitioner:
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, who is working as a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short, „CISF‟), applied for the post of Assistant Commandant (Executive) in the CISF through the Limited Competitive Examination-2019 (in short, „LDCE‟) notified by the respondent no.3, the Union Public Service Commission (in short, „UPSC‟).
3. By way of the above Notification, a total of 10 posts of Assistant Commandant (Exe) were notified by the UPSC, out of which six posts were in the unreserved category, three posts were reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category, and one post was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner had applied under the unreserved category.
4. The selection process consisted of three stages, that is, the written examination (Paper-I, objective, and Paper-II, subjective), the physical endurance test and the medical examination, and lastly, the interview/personality test.
5. It is not disputed that the petitioner secured 369 marks in Paper-I, Paper-II, and the interview/personality test, all taken together. The breakdown of his marks is as follows: -
“4. The petitioner is set in the said selection and secured the following marks: -
Paper – I 198/300
Paper – II 39/100 (Paper I+II)=237
Interview/
Personality
Test 132/200
Total 369/600”
6. The petitioner also cleared his Physical Endurance Test and the Medical Examination.
7. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that, though the last recommended candidate, that is, the respondent no.4 herein- Mr. Avnish Kumar also secured 369 marks, but the petitioner was not selected.
8. The petitioner claimed that the impugned notification did not prescribe any manner by which the impasse created by two candidates securing the same marks shall be resolved, that is, a tie-breaker formula to be applied. He, in fact, claimed that where the two candidates secure the same marks, both should be given the offer of an appointment, or otherwise, the marks secured during the interview/personality test should be used as the determining factor. This plea, however, was not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of oral submissions.
9. The petitioner further claimed that he was appointed as a Sub-Inspector through direct recruitment in the 2012 batch, while the respondent no.4 was appointed to the said post, again as a direct recruit, in the 2014 batch. The petitioner is 33 years of age, while the respondent no.4 is 28 years of age. The petitioner would have only one more attempt for promotion, whereas the respondent no.4 would have two more attempts. He, therefore, claimed that he should have been given priority over the respondent no.4, even if a tie-breaking formula was to be applied.
10. We must herein note that the petitioner also claimed that the answer key for two questions issued by the respondent no.3 was incorrect and that the respondents should also have operated a reserved/waiting list. This plea, h
