Aastha Pareek
The Delhi High Court has underscored the necessity of providing accurate and appropriate reasoning to the candidates for their rejection from the recruitment processes. A Division Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur on November 27, (Wednesday) observed that miscommunication regarding rejection grounds not only imposes undue hardship on candidates but also leads to litigation procedure, which burdens both the judiciary and the affected individuals. The Court emphasized that recruitment authorities must exercise caution and diligence in conveying rejection reasons to prevent unnecessary disputes.
The case in question arose from a recruitment rally conducted at the 3 EME Centre, Bhopal, in January 2018, following a notification issued in October 2017. The petitioner had participated in the rally and completed the requisite selection process. Despite meeting the required cut-off marks and securing a strong score in both physical fitness and written examinations, the petitioner was informed that he had failed the written test and did not feature in the merit list for vacancies in his state. Dissatisfied with this explanation, the petitioner approached the Court, alleging that the rejection reasons provided were incorrect and misleading.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the rejection was not justified, citing evidence from Right to Information (RTI) applications. The petitioner had scored 100 out of 100 in the physical fitness test and 66 out of 100 in the written test, with an additional 20 marks granted for being the son of an ex-serviceman. These scores exceeded the 176-mark cut-off for 200 marks. The counsel further highlighted that the recruitment rally was designated for All India All Caste (AIAC) vacancies, where candidates from any region could participate. Therefore, the rejection based on the non-availability of vacancies for the petitioner’s state was unreasonable.
In response, the respondents contended that the recruitment process prioritized candidates based on a five-tier priority list. This list, derived from the recruitment notification, ranked candidates based on their affiliations to regiments and the nature of their familial connection to servicemen or ex-servicemen. The petitioner, falling under Priority V as the son of an ex-serviceman belonging to a different regiment, could not be appointed despite meeting the cut-off marks. The respondents also emphasized that the assessment process was automated, utilizing e-DMASS software, which ensured objectivity and accuracy.
The Court acknowledged the validity of the respondent’s argument regarding the priority list and the automated assessment process. However, it expressed disappointment that the petitioner was misinformed about the reasons for his rejection. The Court noted that such inaccuracies could have been avoided had the respondents explicitly conveyed that the petitioner’s position in the last priority tier was the basis for his non-selection. This miscommunication forced the petitioner to pursue litigation, causing unnecessary strain on both him and the judicial system.
While the Court held that no relief could be granted to the petitioner given the recruitment framework, it issued a strong advisory to the respondents. It stressed the need for transparency and accuracy in conveying rejection reasons to candidates to save them from unwarranted legal expenses and emotional distress. The judgment serves as a reminder to recruitment authorities to prioritize clear and truthful communication in their processes, fostering fairness and reducing avoidable litigation.
Case Name :- Sandeep Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Anr.
Case Number:- W.P.(C) 10619/2018
Bench:- Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur
Click here to access the order.