After 21 Years, Allahabad HC Orders Result for 2005 Clerk Applicant, Using Average Interview Marks if Her Score Cannot Be Verified—No Appointment Ordered

The University advertised 40 Junior Clerk/Typist vacancies on 11 January 2005.

The petitioner participated in the typing test and interview; her roll number appeared third in a notice of candidates called for interview.

She alleged that the final result was not declared, although 21 candidates had joined.

The respondents maintained that the notice was not a merit list, that the petitioner’s aggregate score was below the last selected unreserved candidate’s, and that 21 appointments met the University’s assessed requirements.

The petitioner ultimately confined her claim to declaration of the result and did not press her claims for appointment or other relief.

The original record produced before the Court did not contain a final select list or contemporaneous material substantiating the marks pleaded by the respondents.

The selection was governed by 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 in 2003.

Under the procedure described by the respondents, candidates were assessed through the prescribed stages, including a qualifying typing test where applicable, an interview, and preparation of a final select list based on aggregate marks.

The Court applied the principles that participation in a selection process and inclusion in an interview list do not create a right to appointment, and that an employer is not invariably required to fill every advertised vacancy; however, a recruitment process undertaken by a public authority must be brought to a lawful and transparent conclusion.

The Court considered Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Public Information Officer and Registrar v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar as supporting transparency and properly completed evaluation, while recognising that none prescribed average interview marks as a general rule.

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s third position in the interview notice did not establish her position in the final merit list.

But that did not answer her separate grievance that the selection outcome remained unascertainable.

Although the respondents pleaded that the petitioner had scored 51.4 marks and the last selected unreserved candidate 57.02 marks, the original records contained no final result or contemporaneous material establishing those figures; the pleaded marks therefore could not be treated as conclusive.

Given the age of the recruitment and the limited surviving records, a fresh selection was impractical.

The Court considered it fairer to require the respondents to use reliable records and, only if the petitioner’s interview marks could not be verified, calculate average interview marks objectively from relevant available records of candidates in the same selection.

This would allow her result to be determined under the applicable rules without creating an automatic right to appointment or disturbing existing appointments.

The exercise was to be completed within three months after production of a certified copy of the judgment.

The Court clarified that it was not directing the petitioner’s appointment, the filling of all 40 vacancies, or the disturbance of appointments already made.

There was no order as to costs.