Ruchi Sinha vs U.P.King George Dental Science University And 3 Others

A.F.R.
Neutral Citation No. -
2026:AHC-LKO:77661
Reserved on: 12.10.2026
Delivered on: 28.10.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 7470 of 2005
Ruchi Sinha
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
U.P.King George Dental Science University and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Radhika
Singh, Richa Mishra, Rishabh
Chauhan, Rishabh Raj, Shivendra S
Singh Rathore
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dr.l.p.misra, K. Chandra,
Nishant Shukla, Paavan Awasthi,
Shubham Tripathi, T.somvanshi
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard Mrs. Radhika Singh along with Ms. Richa Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.P. Misra, learned Advocate assisted
by Sri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent – King George
Medical University (KGMU).
2. The present writ petition has been filed on following prayer(s):
“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the opposite parties to declare the
complete result of 40 selected persons for the post of Junior
Clerk/Typist in accordance with law.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider
the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of
Junior Clerk/Typist in as much as the petitioner is at serial
no.3 of the merit list as issued vide notification dated
25.10.2005 (Annexure No. 5).
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the opposite parties to keep

2
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
reserve one post of Junior Clerk/Typist in favour of the
petitioner looking into his position in the merit list.
IV. A suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.
V. Award the cost of the writ petition.”
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the alleged illegal,
arbitrary, discriminatory and unwarranted action and inaction of the
opposite parties in the process of selection and appointment to the post of
Junior Clerk/Typist in Uttar Pradesh King George Dental Science
University, Lucknow. The petitioner alleges that serious irregularities
were committed by the opposite parties in the selection process and that
appointments were made without declaring the final result of the
selection.
4. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that opposite
party no.1 issued an advertisement dated 11.01.2005 in the Hindi daily
newspaper Dainik Jagran, inviting applications for various Group ‘C’ and
Group ‘D’ posts, including the post of Junior Clerk/Typist. According to
the petitioner, a total of 40 vacancies were advertised for the post of
Junior Clerk/Typist and the selection was to be made on the basis of
merit.
5. The petitioner claims that she possessed the requisite educational
qualifications and other eligibility criteria prescribed for the post of
Junior Clerk/Typist. She is a commerce graduate and according to her,
had an excellent academic record, having secured approximately 65%
marks in the High School examination, 64% marks in the Intermediate
examination and 55% marks in graduation with first division in the High
School and Intermediate examinations. She had also studied Hindi and
English typing at the Intermediate level and claims to have secured
distinction marks in the relevant subjects.
6. The petitioner further asserts that she was proficient in computer
operations and had obtained a Certificate Course in Computer

3
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
Application from ET & T Corporation Limited, a Government of India
enterprise, securing Grade A+ with 77% marks. Copies of the relevant
educational certificates and other documents relied upon by the petitioner
have been collectively filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.
7. In view of her qualifications and eligibility, the petitioner applied
for the post of Junior Clerk/Typist pursuant to the aforesaid
advertisement dated 11.01.2005. Her application was accepted and she
was permitted to participate in the selection process.
8. Thereafter, opposite party no.3 issued an admit card dated
18.07.2005, directing the petitioner to appear for the typing test on
04.08.2005 at 10:00 a.m. at the Institute of Engineers (India), River Bank
Colony, near Suraj Kund Park, Lucknow. The petitioner was allotted Roll
No.10135. A copy of the admit card dated 18.07.2005 has been filed as
Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.
9. In compliance with the aforesaid admit card, the petitioner
appeared in the typing test on the scheduled date and participated in the
selection process. Subsequently, opposite party no.3 issued an interview
letter dated 17.10.2005, informing the petitioner that she was required to
appear before the Interview Board on 29.10.2005 at 10:30 a.m. at the
office of opposite party no.3. The petitioner was, thus, called for an
interview after the typing test.
10. The petitioner further states that opposite party no.3 published a
notification dated 25.10.2005 in the Hindi daily newspaper Dainik
Jagran, containing the names of candidates who had qualified in the
typing test and were eligible to appear before the Interview Board.
According to the said notification, the successful candidates had been
shortlisted on the basis of merit. The petitioner claims that her Roll
No.10135 appeared at serial no.3 in the aforesaid list. Copies of the
interview letter dated 17.10.2005 and the notification dated 25.10.2005
have been filed as Annexures No. 4 and 5, respectively, to the writ
petition.

4
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
11. Pursuant to the interview letter dated 17.10.2005, the petitioner
appeared before the Interview Board on 29.10.2005. She claims that she
satisfactorily answered the questions put to her during the interview and
also informed the members of the Interview Board that she was working
as a typist in both Hindi and English on computer in the chamber of an
advocate.
12. The petitioner alleges that, despite her participation in the selection
process and her name appearing at serial no.3 in the list of candidates
who had qualified in the typing test, the opposite parties did not declare
the final result of the selection for the post of Junior Clerk/Typist. No
information regarding the final result or the outcome of her candidature
was communicated to the petitioner.
13. The petitioner further states that, on 09.11.2005, she came to know
through reliable sources that, out of the total 40 advertised vacancies for
the post of Junior Clerk/Typist, 21 candidates had been permitted to join
the respective posts without publication or declaration of the final
selection result. According to the petitioner, nine of the aforesaid 21
appointees belonged to the General Category.
14. The petitioner alleges that the aforesaid action of the opposite
parties was arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the principles
governing a fair and transparent selection process. Her grievance is that
appointments were made in favour of certain candidates without
declaring the final result and without disclosing the basis on which such
candidates were selected. She further asserts that, despite 19 vacancies
remaining unfilled, she was not issued an appointment letter or informed
about the status of her candidature.
15. The petitioner contends that, in view of her name appearing at
serial no.3 in the list of candidates who had qualified in the typing test,
her candidature ought to have been duly considered while making
appointments against the advertised vacancies. She alleges that the
opposite parties adopted a pick-and-choose policy by permitting only 21

5
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
candidates to join without declaring the final result for all 40 vacancies.
According to the petitioner, the failure to disclose the selection criteria,
declare the final result and explain the non-filling of the remaining 19
vacancies has given rise to a reasonable apprehension of arbitrariness and
discrimination in the selection process.
16. The petitioner further submits that she has not been informed of
the reasons for withholding the final result or for permitting only 21
candidates to join against the 40 advertised vacancies. She maintains that
the action and inaction of the opposite parties have adversely affected her
legitimate claim for consideration for appointment and have rendered the
selection process.
17. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner seeks a direction
from this Court to summon the entire record relating to the selection
process for the post of Junior Clerk/Typist. She further prays that the
opposite parties be directed to fill up the remaining 19 vacancies in
accordance with law and to consider her candidature for appointment to
the post in question. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred
before this Court.
18. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner
confined her challenge to the relief sought in prayer No.1 of the writ
petition and does not press prayer Nos.2 to 5.
19. She submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.01.2005,
40 vacancies were advertised for the post of Junior Clerk/Typist and the
petitioner duly participated in the selection process, having qualified in
the typing test and appeared in the interview. Despite completion of the
aforesaid selection process, the respondents have not declared the final
result, whereas 21 candidates are stated to have been permitted to join
against the advertised vacancies.
20. She submitted that non-declaration of the result, without disclosing
the outcome of the selection process is arbitrary and defeats the

6
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
requirement of fairness and transparency in public employment under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
21. She submitted that the petitioner does not claim any automatic
right to appointment but seeks only a lawful conclusion of the selection
process and declaration of its final result in accordance with the
applicable rules. Accordingly, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may direct the respondents to declare the final result of
the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated
11.01.2005, in accordance with law.
22. She further submitted that the respondents, being public
authorities, are under an obligation to act fairly and transparently in
matters of public employment. Having permitted the petitioner to
participate in the typing test and interview, the respondents cannot
indefinitely withhold the outcome of the selection process without
bringing the same to its lawful conclusion. The declaration of the final
result would ensure transparency and enable the petitioner to know the
outcome of her candidature.
23. She lastly submitted that, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
she confines her relief to a direction for declaration of the final result and
does not press for any direction for appointment or filling up of the
remaining vacancies. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may direct the respondents to take an appropriate decision
and declare the final result of the selection process for the post of Junior
Clerk/Typist, pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.01.2005. In support
of her submissions, she placed reliance upon following judgments:
a) Central Board of Secondary Education and another Vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay and others; (2011) 8 SCC 497.
b) Harkirat Singh Ghuman Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court
and others; (2022) 19 SCC 787.
c) Public Information Officer and Registrar and another Vs.
Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar and another; Special Leave to Appeal
© No.2783 of 2025 dated 07.02.2025.

7
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
24. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent – KGMU
submitted that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to
be dismissed. It is contended that the selection to the post of Junior
Clerk/Typist was conducted in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh
Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the
Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002,
as amended by the First Amendment Rules, 2003. The petitioner has
failed to establish any illegality, arbitrariness, favouritism or mala fide in
the selection process warranting interference by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
25. He submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.01.2005
published in the newspaper Dainik Jagran , applications were invited for
various categories of posts, including the post of Junior Clerk/Typist. The
advertisement provided for 40 posts in the said category, comprising 20
posts for the unreserved category, 12 posts for the Other Backward
Classes and 8 posts for the Scheduled Castes. It is clarified that the
advertisement covered 24 different types of posts and not merely 24
individual vacancies.
26. It is further submitted that the selection procedure was governed
by the aforesaid Rules of 2002 and the First Amendment Rules of 2003.
Under Rule 5(3)(d) of the amended Rules, where typing or shorthand and
typing is prescribed as an essential qualification, a qualifying test in the
relevant skill is mandatory. Only candidates securing the prescribed
minimum speed in the qualifying test could be considered for further
selection. The number of candidates to be called for the skill test was to
be determined by the Selection Committee, keeping in view the
applicable reservation provisions and the marks obtained under Rule 5(3)
(a), (b) and (c).
27. Learned counsel for respondent - KGMU contends that all
applicants for the post of Junior Clerk/Typist were afforded an
opportunity to participate in the selection process in accordance with the
prescribed procedure. The list published in Dainik Jagran on 25.10.2005,

8
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
which has been relied upon by the petitioner, was merely a list of roll
numbers of candidates called for interview. The said list was not a merit
list arranged according to the marks obtained by the candidates. The
presence of the petitioner’s roll number at Serial No.3 in that list,
therefore, did not confer upon her any right to claim selection or
appointment.
28. It is submitted that Rule 5(4)(a) of the amended Rules provides for
the shortlisting of candidates for interview after evaluation under Rule
5(3), subject to the prescribed ceiling of candidates per vacancy and the
requirement that candidates for posts involving a typing or shorthand test
must first qualify the relevant test. Accordingly, candidates were
shortlisted and called for interview in accordance with the applicable
rules. The respondents deny the allegation that the petitioner occupied the
third position in the merit list or that the selection was conducted by
adopting any pick-and-choose method.
29. Learned counsel for respondent further submits that the interview
was conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance
with Rule 5(4)(b) of the amended Rules. The interview carried 50 marks,
allocated as follows:
S. Maximum
Assessment criterion
No.
marks
Subject/General
1.
10
Knowledge
2. Personality Assessment 20
3. Power of Expression 20
Total Interview marks 50
30. It is contended that the interview marks were added to the marks
obtained under Rule 5(3) and the final select list was prepared on the
basis of the aggregate marks, as mandated by Rule 5(5). In the event of a
tie in aggregate marks, the candidate senior in age was to be placed
higher in the select list.
31. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s claim is
contradicted by the actual marks obtained by her and the selected

9
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
candidates. Although the petitioner seeks to rely upon the list of
candidates called for interview, the relevant consideration is the final
aggregate merit determined after the interview. The petitioner secured
51.4 marks out of 100, whereas the last selected candidate in the
unreserved category secured approximately 57 marks out of 100, as
reflected in the respondents’ pleadings. Thus, the petitioner did not attain
the requisite position in the final merit list for appointment against the
available vacancies.
32. It is further contended that, under Rule 5(5), the final select list
was required to be prepared by adding the marks obtained in the
interview to those obtained in the preceding stages of evaluation. The
petitioner’s contention that she was placed third in merit is founded on a
misreading of the list published on 25.10.2005, which merely contained
roll numbers and was not arranged in order of merit. The petitioner
cannot claim a right to appointment by treating a roll-number list as a
final select list.
33. Learned counsel for respondent draws attention to the comparative
position of the nine candidates selected in the unreserved category, as
disclosed in the counter-affidavit and the relevant service records. The
comparative marks are set out below:
S.
No.
Name of selected
Roll
Marks stated in the counter-
candidate
No.
affidavit
1. Lalit Mohan Sharma 10083 62.6%
2. Neeraj Kumar Singh 10016 61.0%
3. Nitin Sharma 10368 60.8%
4. Kavita Pandey 10583 60.4%
5. Jyotsana Srivastava 11599 59.02%
6. Rajesh Chand 10837 59.0%
7. Kaushal Raj Srivastava 10134 58.0%
8. Ruchika Verma 11405 57.4%
9. Ramesh Singh 10348 57.02%
Petitioner: Ruchi
—
10135 51.4%
Sinha
34. The respondents submit that the comparative chart demonstrates
that the petitioner’s aggregate marks were substantially below those of

10
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
the last selected candidate in the unreserved category. The petitioner,
therefore, cannot claim that she was entitled to appointment merely
because her roll number appeared at a particular serial number in the
interview notice.
35. It is also submitted that, at the preliminary evaluation stage under
Rule 5(3)(a), (b) and (c), the petitioner obtained 28 marks. According to
the counter-affidavit, 38 other candidates obtained 28 marks or more at
that stage. Consequently, even if the petitioner’s preliminary marks are
considered, they do not establish that she was entitled to be placed
‘ third’ in the final merit list. Her claim fails to account for the interview
marks and the aggregate-based selection prescribed under the Rules.
36. Learned counsel for respondent further submits that the final select
list was forwarded to the appointing authority in accordance with Rule
5(6) and appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates. The
selection was, thus, completed through the prescribed statutory
procedure. The respondents deny that any candidate was appointed
through favouritism, discrimination or any extraneous consideration and
maintain that the selection was based on the comparative merit of the
candidates.
37. With regard to the allegation that all advertised vacancies ought to
have been filled, learned counsel submits that an advertisement inviting
applications does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right upon every
candidate to be appointed or impose an absolute obligation upon the
employer to fill every advertised vacancy. The extent of recruitment must
be considered in the light of the applicable rules, the actual requirements
of the institution and the relevant administrative and financial
considerations. The respondents state that 21 appointments were made
against the requirement assessed by the University at the relevant time.
38. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the decision to make
21 appointments was taken having regard to the University’s
requirements and the need to avoid unnecessary expenditure. Reliance

11
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
has been placed in the counter-affidavit upon paragraph 12 of the Budget
Manual concerning economical expenditure of public funds. The
respondents accordingly contend that the number of appointments made
was justified by the assessed requirement and that the petitioner has not
demonstrated that the decision was actuated by mala fides or was
otherwise contrary to law.
39. It is further submitted that the mere fact that fewer appointments
were made than the number of posts initially advertised does not
establish illegality in the selection process. The petitioner must
demonstrate a violation of the governing recruitment rules or some
legally sustainable ground for judicial interference. In the absence of
such material, the selection cannot be invalidated merely because the
petitioner was unsuccessful or because some advertised vacancies
remained unfilled.
40. He further submits that the petitioner’s reliance on the list
published in Dainik Jagran dated 25.10.2005 is misplaced. The said
publication merely intimated the candidates called for interview
regarding the relevant information and was not intended to disclose their
final merit position. The petitioner’s assertion that she stood third in the
selection process is, therefore, denied as being contrary to the nature and
purpose of the document relied upon by her.
41. Learned counsel for respondent reiterates that the selection was
conducted in accordance with the Rules of 2002, as amended in 2003 and
that the final merit was determined on the basis of the aggregate marks
obtained by the candidates. The petitioner secured 51.4 marks, whereas
the last selected candidate in the unreserved category secured 57.02
marks. The respondents, therefore, contend that the petitioner’s non-
selection resulted from her position in the final merit and not from any
arbitrary or discriminatory action on the part of the University.
42. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents–King
George’s Medical University, Lucknow further submits that the selection

12
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
in question pertains to the year 2005 and the matter itself relates to an old
recruitment process. Owing to the considerable passage of time, the
respondents have been able to trace and produce before this Hon’ble
Court only such records and documents as are presently available in their
custody. It is specifically submitted that, apart from the records already
produced before this Hon’ble Court, no other relevant record pertaining
to the selection in question is presently available with the respondents.
The non-availability of any additional record is attributable to the
antiquity of the matter and the considerable lapse of time since the
recruitment process was undertaken and not to any deliberate
withholding or suppression of material on the part of the respondents.
43. Learned counsel for respondent further submits that the available
counter-affidavit, comparative marks and details of the selected
candidates demonstrate that the selection was undertaken in accordance
with the applicable recruitment rules and that the petitioner secured fewer
aggregate marks than the last selected candidate in the unreserved
category. The petitioner’s claim is principally founded upon an erroneous
interpretation of the list of candidates called for interview, which was not
a final merit list. In the absence of any cogent material establishing
arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fides or violation of the applicable
recruitment rules, no adverse inference ought to be drawn merely because
further records relating to this old selection are no longer available.
44. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have placed before
this Hon’ble Court all records presently available with them and have
disclosed their factual position on the basis of such records. The
respondents cannot be expected to produce documents that are no longer
available in their custody merely because the selection took place more
than two decades ago. It is, therefore, submitted that the matter ought to
be adjudicated on the basis of the pleadings and the surviving records
placed before this Court, without presuming any illegality solely on
account of the non-availability of additional documents.

13
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
45. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents have placed before
this Hon’ble Court all records presently available with them and have
disclosed their factual position on the basis of such records. In view of
the considerable age of the matter, the limited availability of the
surviving records, the petitioner’s lower aggregate marks and the absence
of any established illegality in the selection process, learned counsel
prays that the writ petition be dismissed as devoid of merit.
46. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material on record as well as record produced
by learned counsel for respondent - KGMU on the direction of this Court
and the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.
47. To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, relevant portion
of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are
being quoted below:
a) Central Board of Secondary Education and another (Supra):
“44. We may next consider whether an examining body
would be entitled to claim exemption under Section 8(1)(e)
of the RTI Act, even assuming that it is in a fiduciary
relationship with the examinee. That section provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, there shall
be no obligation to give any citizen information available
to a person in his fiduciary relationship. This would only
mean that even if the relationship is fiduciary, the
exemption would operate in regard to giving access to the
information held in fiduciary relationship, to third parties.
There is no question of the fiduciary withholding
information relating to the beneficiary, from the
beneficiary himself.
46. An evaluated answer book of an examinee is a
combination of two different “informations”. The first is
the answers written by the examinee and the second is the
marks/assessment by the examiner. When an examinee
seeks inspection of his evaluated answer books or seeks a
certified copy of the evaluated answer book, the
information sought by him is not really the answers he has
written in the answer books (which he already knows), nor
the total marks assigned for the answers (which has been
declared). What he really seeks is the information relating
to the break-up of marks, that is, the specific marks
assigned to each of his answers. When an examinee seeks
“information” by inspection/certified copies of his answer
books, he knows the contents thereof being the author
thereof.

14
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
48. This takes us to the crucial issue of evaluation by the
examiner. The examining body engages or employs
hundreds of examiners to do the evaluation of thousands of
answer books. The question is: whether the information
relating to the “evaluation” (that is, assigning of marks) is
held by the examining body in a fiduciary relationship?
The examining bodies contend that even if fiduciary
relationship does not exist with reference to the examinee,
it exists with reference to the examiner who evaluates the
answer books. On a careful examination we find that this
contention has no merit.”
b) Harkirat Singh Ghuman (Supra):
“26. The learned counsel submitted that at least the
respondents be directed to declare the result of the
applicant who is not even remotely concerned with the
complaint in reference to which the present appellant has
approached this Court and this fact has not been disputed
by either of the parties.
31. So far as the marks of the written examination not
being supplied to the appellant under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 by Communication dated 6-1-2020,
are concerned, this position has been settled by a catena
of judgments of this Court that as long as the process is
not complete, the marks of the written examination are
not to be uploaded or made available to the candidates
and if it is being permitted, that will not be in the interest
of the applicants. The disclosure of the marks in the main
examination before it is finalised and the viva voce is
conducted, would be against the principles of
transparency, rather it will invite criticism of bias or
favouritism.
32. To clarify further, in such cases, where the written
examination is followed with viva voce, declaration of
result of the written examination before conducting viva
voce may not be valid and justified but in cases where
determination of merit is based on written examination, it
must be declared and made available to candidates
without any loss of time and this Court can take a judicial
notice of the fact that in such cases where the written
examination is followed with interview/viva voce and the
members in the interview board are made aware of the
marks secured by the candidates in the written
examination that may likely to form bias affecting the
impartial evaluation of the candidates in viva voce and in
our considered view, it may always be avoided.
38. The appeal accordingly succeeds and the
impugned judgment of the High Court dated 23-1-2020
[Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. High Court of Punjab &
Haryana, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 4404] is hereby set
aside and we direct the respondents to valuate the marks
obtained of Questions 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Paper V (Criminal
Law) (out of total 160 marks) and after undertaking the

15
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
process, a fresh result of the written examination be
declared of the candidates in reference to
Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination,
2019 and those who qualify and fall in the zone of three
times the number of vacancies may be called for viva voce
and result of the selection process, thereafter be finally
declared in accordance with the scheme of the 2007
Rules.”
c) Public Information Officer and Registrar and another
(Supra):
“2. We see absolutely no reason to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the High Court of Bombay,
which has correctly interpreted the provisions of Section
8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short
‘the RTI Act, 2005’). The issue relates to disclosure of
marks of other candidate in an examination. We are also
of the view that the disclosure of the marks though may
fall in the category of personal information, yet the
disclosure of this personal information is presently
necessary in public interest, and therefore, it is not an
information which cannot be given by the Information
Officer under the RTI Act, 2005. To the contrary, such an
information must be disclosed in order to maintain
transparency in the process.”
48. While entertaining the writ petition, this court granted following
interim order vide order dated 21.11.2005:
“………………………..
In the meanwhile, the appointment made, shall be
subject to further orders in this writ petition.”
49. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, examined the pleadings and the material available
on record, including the records produced by learned counsel appearing
for respondent–King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, this Court
finds that the controversy requiring consideration is confined to the
lawful conclusion of the selection process initiated pursuant to the
advertisement dated 11.01.2005 for the post of Junior Clerk/Typist.
50. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner
has expressly confined the relief to prayer No.I and has not pressed
prayer Nos. II to V of the writ petition. Accordingly, the claim for
appointment, reservation of a post and other consequential reliefs is not
required to be adjudicated in the present proceedings. The consideration

16
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
herein shall, therefore, remain confined to whether the respondents can
be permitted to leave the result of the selection process undeclared and, if
the surviving records do not permit the result to be determined in the
ordinary manner, what appropriate direction is necessary to ensure a fair
and transparent conclusion of the recruitment.
51. The facts emerging from the pleadings indicate that the petitioner
applied for the post of Junior Clerk/Typist pursuant to the advertisement
dated 11.01.2005, was issued an admit card for the typing test,
participated in the said test and was thereafter called for an interview
scheduled on 29.10.2005. The petitioner has relied upon the notification
published in Dainik Jagran on 25.10.2005, in which her roll number
appeared at serial No.3. The respondents have explained that the said
notification merely contained the roll numbers of candidates called for
interview and did not represent the final merit list. This Court finds merit
in the respondents' submission to the limited extent that the position of a
candidate in a list of persons called for interview cannot, by itself, be
treated as her position in the final select list. The petitioner cannot,
therefore, claim a right to selection merely on the basis of the serial
number appearing against her roll number in the aforesaid notification.
52. Nevertheless, the respondents' aforesaid submission does not
resolve the principal grievance raised by the petitioner. The distinction
between a list of candidates called for interview and the final select list is
well recognised; however, once a recruitment process has been
undertaken and candidates have participated in the prescribed stages of
selection, the competent authority is expected to bring the process to its
lawful conclusion. The declaration of the final result is an essential
component of transparency in public recruitment, as it enables the
candidates to ascertain the outcome of their candidature and the authority
to demonstrate that the selection has been completed in accordance with
the applicable rules. The respondents cannot answer the petitioner's
grievance merely by asserting that the notification dated 25.10.2005 was
not a merit list, without ensuring that the final outcome of the selection is
ascertainable from the surviving records and is duly communicated.

17
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
53. The respondents have placed reliance upon the Uttar Pradesh
Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the
Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002,
as amended by the First Amendment Rules, 2003. According to learned
counsel for the respondents, the selection was governed by Rule 5, under
which candidates were required to undergo the prescribed stages of
evaluation, including a qualifying typing test wherever applicable,
followed by an interview carrying 50 marks. The final select list was to
be prepared by aggregating the marks obtained at the relevant stages of
evaluation, with the applicable tie-breaking criterion being applied where
necessary. The respondents further assert that the petitioner secured 51.4
marks out of 100, whereas the last selected candidate in the unreserved
category secured 57.02 marks.
54. The aforesaid submissions demonstrate that the final result was
required to be determined by reference to the prescribed criteria and the
aggregate marks obtained by each candidate. Consequently, neither the
petitioner's academic qualifications nor her appearance at a particular
serial number in the interview notification can substitute for the
prescribed process of evaluation. Equally, the respondents are required to
ensure that the marks forming the basis of the final result are capable of
verification from the available records and have been determined in
accordance with the applicable recruitment rules.
54. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that an
advertisement inviting applications for public employment does not
confer an indefeasible right upon every eligible applicant to secure
appointment. Nor does the mere existence of advertised vacancies
invariably oblige the employer to fill every vacancy. The respondents
have asserted that 21 appointments were made after assessing the
University's requirements and that the number of appointments was
determined in the light of administrative and financial considerations. In
the absence of sufficient material establishing that the decision not to fill
all the advertised vacancies was itself unlawful, this Court would not be

18
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
justified in directing the respondents to fill the remaining vacancies
merely because the advertisement initially mentioned 40 posts.
55. However, the question whether every advertised vacancy was
required to be filled is distinct from the question whether the selection
process undertaken by the respondents should be brought to a lawful
conclusion. Even where the employer decides, for justifiable
administrative reasons, not to fill all the advertised posts, such decision
does not dispense with the obligation to determine and disclose the
outcome of the selection process in a manner consistent with the
applicable rules.
56. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the
recruitment pertains to the year 2005 and, owing to the considerable
passage of time, only such records as could be traced and retrieved are
presently available. The respondents deny having deliberately withheld
or suppressed any material and submit that the matter should be decided
on the basis of the surviving records. This Court finds that the age of the
recruitment is a relevant consideration in determining the nature and
extent of relief. The respondents cannot be directed to produce
documents which are genuinely no longer available merely because the
recruitment took place more than two decades ago. At the same time, the
non-availability of certain records cannot, by itself, justify leaving the
petitioner's candidature without a determinable outcome, particularly
when the petitioner seeks only the declaration of the result and does not
press a claim for appointment.
57. The appropriate course, therefore, is to require the respondents to
undertake a reasoned exercise on the basis of the records presently
available, identify any component of evaluation which cannot reliably be
ascertained and adopt a fair and objective method to complete the process
to the extent legally permissible. Where the marks awarded to the
petitioner in the interview cannot be established from the surviving
records and the respondents are consequently unable to determine her
aggregate marks through the ordinary method prescribed under the

19
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
recruitment rules, the deficiency cannot be addressed through an arbitrary
or speculative assessment. In such circumstances, awarding average
interview marks, calculated on an objective and verifiable basis from the
relevant available records of the same selection, would constitute a
corrective measure directed at completing the result rather than
conferring an automatic right to appointment.
58. In this regard, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner require consideration in their proper perspective. In the case of
Central Board of Secondary Education and another (Supra) , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered, inter alia, the availability and
disclosure of evaluation-related information and the rights of an
examinee in relation to the assessment of her or his performance. The
decision recognises the importance of access to information relating to
one's own evaluation, subject to the governing legal framework. Though
the said judgment does not independently prescribe the award of average
marks in a recruitment interview, the principle of transparency
underlying it reinforces the requirement that an authority entrusted with
evaluation should be able to disclose and explain the outcome of the
process on the basis of the records available.
59. In the case of Harkirat Singh Ghuman (Supra) , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court issued directions for evaluation of specified examination
answers and declaration of a fresh result in accordance with the
applicable recruitment rules. The decision is relevant to the extent that it
demonstrates that, where an identifiable deficiency in evaluation requires
correction, the competent authority may be directed to undertake the
necessary exercise and declare the result accordingly. The precise
directions in that case arose from its own factual and legal setting;
nevertheless, the principle that the result should reflect a properly
completed evaluation supports directing the respondents in the present
case to undertake an objective exercise, consistent with the available
records and the applicable rules, before declaring the final result.

20
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
60. Similarly, in the case of Public Information Officer and
Registrar and another (Supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to
interfere with the order of the High Court concerning disclosure of marks
of other candidates, observing the relevance of such disclosure to
transparency in the process in the circumstances of that case. The said
decision, while not directly laying down a formula for awarding average
interview marks, lends support to the broader requirement that public
recruitment should be conducted and concluded in a manner which
permits appropriate scrutiny of the evaluation and the resultant merit
position. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner, thus, support the
necessity of a transparent and verifiable result, although the specific
corrective direction in the present matter must rest upon the facts of this
case and the nature of the surviving records.
61. The respondents' contention that the petitioner secured 51.4 marks
and that the last selected candidate in the unreserved category secured
57.02 marks also requires appropriate consideration. If the petitioner's
aggregate marks, including the marks awarded at every prescribed stage,
are fully supported by reliable and verifiable records, the respondents
must take those marks into account in accordance with the governing
rules. Conversely, if the marks attributed to any particular stage,
especially the interview, cannot be verified because the relevant record is
no longer available, the respondents cannot treat an unverified figure as
conclusive without explaining its basis. The proposed direction to award
average interview marks is intended to address only such an established
deficiency and shall not be understood as permitting the respondents to
disregard any reliable assessment record that remains available.
62. For that purpose, the average must be determined objectively from
the interview marks awarded to candidates who participated in the same
selection for the post of Junior Clerk/Typist, using the relevant and
verifiable records available with the respondents. The exercise must be
documented and the respondents must record the method of calculation
and the reasons for adopting it. The average marks so determined shall be

21
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
incorporated only to the extent necessary to complete the petitioner's
evaluation, after which the aggregate marks and the final result shall be
determined in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules. The
direction is not intended to revise the marks of other candidates or disturb
appointments already made.
63. This Court is also mindful that the selection in question is more
than two decades old, and that the respondents have specifically stated
that no further records are available beyond those already produced. In
these circumstances, a direction to recommence the entire recruitment
process or to undertake a fresh interview after such a long lapse of time
would neither be practical nor necessary for the limited relief pressed by
the petitioner. The appropriate relief is one which balances the
requirement of fairness with the realities of the surviving record, while
preserving the distinction between the declaration of a result and the
grant of appointment. The respondents shall, therefore, undertake the
exercise on the basis of the material presently available and shall not treat
the mere passage of time or the absence of additional records as a
sufficient ground to leave the result indefinitely unresolved.
64 . On perusal of the original records produced before this Court by
learned counsel appearing for the respondent–University, it is evident
that no final result of the selection process in question is available on
record. In the absence of the final select list or any contemporaneous
documentary material substantiating the final outcome of the selection,
the marks stated in the counter-affidavit cannot, by themselves, be treated
as conclusive or accorded unquestionable credibility. The figures pleaded
by the respondents, including the marks allegedly obtained by the
petitioner and the last selected candidate in the unreserved category,
remain unsupported by the final result in the original record produced
before this Court. Consequently, the respondents' assertion regarding the
petitioner's comparative merit cannot be accepted as conclusively
established merely on the basis of the averments made in the counter-
affidavit. This circumstance further reinforces the necessity of directing

22
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
the respondents to undertake an objective and verifiable exercise on the
basis of the available records, award average interview marks to the
petitioner where her actual interview marks cannot be ascertained from
reliable contemporaneous records and, thereafter, declare the result of her
candidature in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules.
65. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the view that the
petitioner's limited grievance concerning the non-declaration of the final
result warrants appropriate relief. The respondents are under an
obligation to bring the selection process to a reasoned conclusion, in
accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and the records
available with them. Where the petitioner's interview marks cannot be
ascertained from reliable surviving records, the respondents shall award
average interview marks calculated on the objective and verifiable basis
indicated hereinabove, incorporate the same into the petitioner's
aggregate marks and determine the outcome of her candidature in
accordance with the governing rules.
66. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
(i) The respondents, particularly the competent authority of King
George’s Medical University, Lucknow, shall examine the records
presently available concerning the selection initiated pursuant to the
advertisement dated 11.01.2005 for the post of Junior Clerk/Typist.
(ii) If the marks awarded to the petitioner at the interview stage cannot
be ascertained from reliable and verifiable surviving records, the
respondents shall award her average interview marks, calculated on an
objective and verifiable basis from the relevant available interview
records of candidates who participated in the same selection for the post
of Junior Clerk/Typist. The calculation and the basis adopted shall be
recorded in writing.
(iii) After undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the respondents shall
calculate the petitioner's aggregate marks in accordance with the

23
WRIA No. - 7470 of 2005
applicable recruitment rules and declare the final result of her
candidature, together with a reasoned communication of the outcome.
(iv) The entire exercise, including the declaration of the result, shall be
completed within three months from the date a certified copy of this
order is produced before the competent authority.
(v) It is clarified that this direction is confined to the declaration of the
petitioner's result. It shall not be construed as a direction to appoint the
petitioner, to fill all 40 advertised vacancies, or to disturb appointments
already made. The petitioner's candidature shall be assessed in
accordance with the applicable rules and the outcome of the evaluation
undertaken pursuant to this order.
67. In view of the fact that the petitioner has confined her claim to
prayer No.I, no separate adjudication is required in respect of prayer
Nos.II to V, which have not been pressed.
68. There shall be no order as to costs.
69. The record kept in sealed cover is returned to learned counsel for
the respondent.
(Irshad Ali,J.)
October 28, 2026
Adarsh K Singh
Digitally signed by :-
ADARSH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench