Court dismisses petition challenging rejection of candidature for failing to meet experience criteria as per recruitment advertisement.
In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court has upheld the Union Public Service Commission’s (UPSC) decision to reject the candidature of Anant Kumar Rao for the post of Prosecutor in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The court ruled that the rejection was justified as the petitioner did not meet the requisite experience criteria as stipulated in the recruitment advertisement.
The petitioner, Anant Kumar Rao, had applied for one of the twelve Prosecutor positions advertised by the UPSC under Advertisement No. 18/2022. The advertisement specified that candidates with an integrated law degree were required to have two years of experience in litigation and court matters or administration of law in a government organization. Rao claimed experience with Willard Advisory Pvt. Ltd., which did not satisfy the criteria of handling litigation and court matters as required by the advertisement.
The petitioner’s application was rejected by the UPSC on the grounds of lacking the necessary experience, and subsequent experience certificates submitted after the cut-off date were deemed inadmissible. Rao then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed his application, leading to the current writ petition in the High Court.
The High Court, presided by Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, reiterated the importance of maintaining the sanctity of the cut-off date in recruitment processes. The judgment emphasized that allowing improvements or additional submissions after the cut-off date would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, which mandate equality and non-discrimination in public employment.
The court also addressed the issue of discretionary power under the advertisement’s Note-I and Note-II, which allows for relaxation of qualifications. It clarified that such discretion is not an enforceable right for candidates, and there was no evidence of arbitrariness in the UPSC’s refusal to exercise this discretion in Rao’s case.
Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petitioner’s argument that his Scheduled Tribe status warranted relaxation of the experience requirement. The decision to uphold the rejection was based on settled legal principles, emphasizing that judicial review in recruitment matters is limited to examining the legality of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself.
The judgment serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards applied in recruitment processes for public positions, reinforcing the need for candidates to strictly adhere to the eligibility criteria as prescribed in official advertisements.
Bottom Line:
Recruitment - Eligibility criteria for the post of Prosecutor in SFIO - Candidate's eligibility must strictly comply with the terms of the advertisement, including the cut-off date for experience disclosures.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Anant Kumar Rao v. Union Public Service Commission, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2852851
