Satinder Pal's plea dismissed; judicial review limited in recruitment matters without evidence of illegality or arbitrariness.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Satinder Pal challenging the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had previously rejected his application concerning the recruitment process for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Staff Service Commission (SSC). The judgment, delivered by Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, reaffirms the limited scope of judicial review in recruitment matters, emphasizing that candidates cannot claim appointment rights merely because vacancies exist.
Satinder Pal had appeared for the SSC examination in 2012, securing 299 marks initially against a cut-off of 295.50 for his category. However, subsequent legal proceedings led to an enhancement of the cut-off marks first to 297.50 and later to 300, leaving Pal below the revised threshold. Despite arguing that several candidates with lower marks were appointed in 2014, the court found these appointments were made in compliance with Supreme Court directions, thus not constituting wrongful actions by the respondents.
The court underscored that judicial review in recruitment cases is confined to examining legal or constitutional infirmities and unlawful actions by employers. It noted that the existence of vacancies does not confer a vested right of appointment to candidates. Moreover, the recruitment process in question dates back to 2012, and without any clear evidence of patent illegality or arbitrariness, reopening the process in 2026 was deemed unjustifiable.
The judgment further highlighted that Pal failed to demonstrate any malafide or wrongful consideration by the respondents, especially given the issuance of a show cause notice in 2014 regarding alleged cheating, a fact undisputed by Pal. Consequently, the court dismissed Pal's petition, maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process and the final revised cut-off marks.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's restrained role in administrative decisions concerning recruitment, reinforcing that the prerogative to fill vacancies lies exclusively with the employer unless proven otherwise by showing legal violations.
Bottom Line:
Recruitment - Judicial review in recruitment matters is limited to examining legal or constitutional infirmities or unlawful actions by the employer. Mere existence of vacancies does not confer a vested right for appointment to a candidate.
Statutory provision(s): Judicial review scope in recruitment matters, vested rights in appointments, legal infirmity, constitutional infirmity, unlawful parity, patent illegality, arbitrariness.
Satinder Pal v. Govt of Nct of Delhi, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2844099
