SC Quashes Appointment Order as Missing Selection Records Did Not Prove Candidates Cleared Exam

Case Details: Durgapur Steel Plant vs. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 393 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Alok Aradhe & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant, a public-sector steel plant, issued an advertisement in 2007 for the post of Plant Attendant. The Selection comprised a written examination conducted by an independent agency, followed by an interview and medical examination.

Roll numbers of 1,530 candidates who qualified in the written test were published; offers were issued to 150 candidates (139 joined), and subsequently 55 more were offered appointments, totalling 194 joinings.

Respondents filed a writ petition seeking production of written examination results and disclosure of their marks, and restraining appellants from issuing appointment orders to selected candidates.

Another writ petition challenged a 2010 advertisement for Junior Technician/Operator – Both writ petitions were transferred to the Tribunal.

It was recorded that a direction was sought to call for the results of 56 candidates who were subsequently selected, and no specific prayer for appointment for respondents was made. By order in 2018, Tribunal noted that marks of written test were not produced or disclosed; despite pendency of writ petitions, records were not preserved after finalisation of 194 appointments; and there was no documentary evidence establishing that respondents had failed – It directed appellants to offer appointments to respondents to post of Plant Attendant or an equivalent post, with suitable age relaxation, to place them at bottom of seniority list, and to grant only prospective benefits.

The High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement required the publication of marks obtained by all candidates who appeared in the written examination. Further, it was not the case that the respondents had passed the examination, and there was no material on record indicating that they had passed the written examination.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that merely because respondents were not shown to have failed, no inference could be drawn that they had passed written examination. Further, the written examination was conducted by an independent agency, and neither the rules nor the advertisement prescribed the duration for which records of the selection process were to be preserved.

The Supreme Court held that the explanation of the appellants for non-production of the record that the same were unavailable or had been destroyed appeared to be bona fide. Further, mere non-production of such records did not justify drawing an inference that respondents had cleared the written test.

The Supreme Court also held, for an additional reason, that a direction for the appointment of respondents to the post of Plant Attendant could not be granted, as the qualifications for the post were revised in the year 2008. Therefore, the appellants could not be directed to appoint respondents.

For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Tribunal directing the appointment of respondents to the post of Plant Attendant, as well as the judgment of the High Court, could not be sustained.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Orders of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, Dated 19.07.2019 in WPCT-41-2019 and WPCT-41-2019, Dated 27.09.2019 (para 16) set aside

List of Cases Referred to

• Poonam Rani v. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 596 (para 11)
• Union of India v. O. Chakradhar 2002 taxmann.com 3757 (SC) (para 11)
• Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) (2021) 4 SCC 631 (para 11)
• Kerala Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission (2016) 3 SCC 417 (para 11)
• Mohd. Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat (2020) 2 SCC 582 (para 13)
• State of Manipur v. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei (2019) 3 SCC 331 (para 13)
• Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh (1993) 1 SCC 154 (para 13).