Back
Supreme Court Slams 'Inference' Trap: No Job Rights from Undisclosed Exam Marks
In a significant ruling on recruitment transparency, the has overturned directives from the and that ordered appointments for candidates whose exam marks were not disclosed. Justices Alok Aradhe and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, in & Ors. v. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Ors. (2026 INSC 459), held that mere non-publication of marks doesn't prove candidates passed, especially when rules don't mandate disclosure. The bench awarded Rs. 5 lakhs to the sole pursuing respondent as a goodwill gesture after 18 years of litigation.
From 52,000 Applicants to a 18-Year Battle
, part of , advertised 90 posts for Plant Attendant-cum-Junior Technician in , later scaling to 200 amid rising needs. Over 52,000 applied; 29,459 took the written exam on , outsourced to an independent agency. Just 1,530 qualified, leading to interviews, medicals, and 194 appointments by 2009.
Respondents, led by Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury, challenged in via writ petitions demanding exam results and marks disclosure, plus a stay on appointments. Cases shuttled to , which in slammed the employer for not preserving records despite pending suits and lacking proof of respondents' failure. CAT ordered their appointment with age relaxation and bottom seniority. upheld this in after interim assessment orders. SAIL appealed to the Supreme Court.
Appellants' Defense: Rules Didn't Demand Marks Parade
argued no rule or ad required publishing all 29,459 candidates' marks—only shortlisting roll numbers sufficed. Records weren't preserved as per norms, especially post-outsourcing. Respondents never claimed passing the exam or sought direct appointment initially; post-2008 qualification revisions made slots impossible anyway. " destruction," they stressed, isn't malice.
Respondents' Push: Secrecy Screams Arbitrariness
, for Respondent No.1 (others withdrew), cried foul under : no cut-offs, criteria, or marks shared, just opaque roll numbers. Record absence? Draw —they must've passed! Cited precedents like for transparency mandates.
Court's Sharp Scalpel: No Rules, No Inference, No Jobs
The bench dissected the fray: State entities must pick on merit sans discrimination, but select-listers gain no automatic rights absent rules (
line). Critically,
"neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement required the publication of the marks obtained by all the candidates"
(Para 14). No proof respondents passed; non-failure ≠ success.
Outsourcing absolved malice:
"The written examination was conducted through an independent agency. Neither the rules nor the advertisement prescribed the duration for which the records... were to be preserved. Therefore, the explanation... appears to be
"
(Para 15). Respondents sought others' results, not their own hires initially. Revised qualifications sealed it—no appointments possible.
Precedents reinforced: on transparency limits; against adverse inferences sans mandate.
Key Observations
"Merely because the respondents were not shown to have failed, no inference could be drawn that they had passed the written examination."(Para 14)
"Mere non-production of such records does not justify drawing an inference that the respondents had cleared the written test."(Para 15)
"A candidate whose name appears in the does not acquire any ..."(Para 13, citing precedents)
"The State or its instrumentalities... are obligated to adhere to the ... and no discrimination is permissible."(Para 13)
Gavel Falls: Appeals Allowed, Costs Awarded
Impugned orders set aside—no appointments. But in equity, given Respondent No.1's solo decade-plus fight: pay Rs.5,00,000/- within two months . No costs otherwise. As notes, this clarifies recruiters aren't liable for non-mandated disclosures, shielding processes from endless litigation.
This precedent fortifies PSUs: outsource freely, follow rules, destroy records per norms—sans proof of pass, no backdoor jobs. Future recruits? Demand clarity upfront, not infer later.
