$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7880/2018 ASHUTOSH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Mr. Yatharth Singh and Ms. Shrishti Gautam, Advocates.

versus NATIONALS SCHEDULED CASTES FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rakesh Sinha, Mr. Md. Ghulam Akbar, Mr. Jeemon Raju K. & Ms.

Suman Lata, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 03.02.2026

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the decision of National Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation (NSFDC or “the Corporation”) of not selecting the Petitioner to the post of Manager (Information Technology), pursuant to the recruitment process initiated through the vacancy notification published in Employment News dated 19^th August, 2017 to 25^th August, 2017. The Petitioner seeks, in substance, a direction to set aside the decision of non-selection and to appoint him to the said post.

Facts in brief

2. The vacancy notification advertised, inter alia, one post of Manager (IT) in the E-3 level (Group ‘A’) in the middle managerial cadre of the Corporation. The “Mode of Selection” clause stipulated that selection to the posts of Chief Managers and Managers would be through an online written test followed by interview, and that appointment would be issued on the basis of “order of merit” in the online written test and interview.

3. The Corporation received five online applications for the post of Manager (IT) by the closing date, 15^th September, 2017. An online written examination was conducted on 13^th October, 2017 through an independent agency, namely the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS), Mumbai. Only three candidates appeared.

4. As per the Corporation, candidates securing 33% marks and above in the written examination were to be called for the interview. On that basis, only the Petitioner, having secured 85.86 marks out of 250 (34.34%), was called for interview held on 19^th February, 2018.

5. The interview was conducted by a Selection Committee comprising six members, including senior officers representing reserved categories and women, and two external experts. One external expert was from the National Informatics Centre (NIC) with domain expertise in IT. The interview carried 44 marks (15% weightage), while the written test carried 250 marks (85%

weightage), making a total of 294 marks.

6. The Petitioner was awarded 8 marks out of 44 in the interview (18.18%). His aggregate thus stood at 93.86 out of 294, that is 31.93%. The Corporation asserts that the minimum required aggregate score for a Group ‘A’ post of Manager (E-3) was 33%, and since the Petitioner fell below that threshold, the Selection Committee found him “not suitable”. The competent authority accepted that recommendation. The post remains vacant.

7. By communication dated 5^th August, 2018, the Corporation informed the Petitioner of these details and the basis for non-selection. The Corporation also recorded, in the same communication, that at the stage of document scrutiny it noticed a discrepancy in the Petitioner’s claim of PwD (Low Vision) status, inasmuch as the disability certificate produced indicated 20% disability whereas the online application reflected 40%.

Submissions

8. The Petitioner makes the following submissions in support of the reliefs sought:

8.1. He satisfies the essential qualifications and experience prescribed for the post and, on that basis, was admitted to the selection process.

8.2 Five candidates applied, three appeared in the online written examination, and he alone was called for interview. The Petitioner being the only candidate found eligible to be interviewed, coupled with the fact that the post has remained vacant even thereafter, reinforces that the process ought to have culminated in his appointment. The Corporation could not have treated the interview as a device to defeat a selection process that had otherwise found him fit to be considered.

8.3 The selection