Facts
The Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) issued an advertisement on 28.07.2020 for the recruitment of Constables (Group C)
Source reference: p. 2The selection process included physical tests, written examinations, skill tests, and medical examinations
Source reference: p. 2The Petitioners, applying under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, cleared all stages
Source reference: p. 4-5However, the final result for the EWS category (declared on 17.01.2024) did not include their names
Source reference: p. 7The Petitioners alleged irregularities, claiming that the SSB accepted invalid or post-dated EWS certificates from other selected candidates and failed to disclose individual marks and category-wise cut-offs
Source reference: p. 7-8The respondents contended that the petitioners were not selected because they secured marks below the prescribed cut-offs
Source reference: p. 12-13Issues
1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a declaration of their marks, ranks, and the cut-off marks for the EWS category
Source reference: p. 15 / para. 322. Whether the recruitment process should be invalidated due to the alleged acceptance of defective or post-dated EWS certificates from other candidates
Source reference: p. 15 / para. 31Law Applied
The court relied on the principles of transparency in public employment as outlined in Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) OMs dated 19.07.2017 and 21.06.2016, which mandate the disclosure of scores and ranks
Source reference: p. 8-9It applied the precedent in UPSC v. Gaurav Singh (2024) and Divya v. Union of India (2024), which establish that EWS eligibility must be strictly based on certificates valid for the relevant financial year as stipulated in the advertisement
Source reference: p. 9, 19The court applied the doctrine of acquiescence, noting that a candidate who participates in a selection process without protest is generally precluded from later challenging the terms of the advertisement
Source reference: p. 21 / para. 43Reasoning
The Court observed that the Petitioners' marks (68 for CT Cook, 60 for CT Driver, and 65 in written/31 in skill test for CT Water Carrier) were lower than the respective EWS cut-offs of 71, 61, and 65 (written)/33 (skill test)
Source reference: p. 17 / para. 37Regarding the validity of EWS certificates, the Court noted that Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 had themselves submitted fresh certificates upon the SSB's request, which were accepted and used for their assessment
Source reference: p. 18 / para. 39The Court found no merit in the Petitioners' claim to invalidate the selection of others based on similar certification issues, as the Petitioners' own rejection was based on merit (marks) rather than technical certificate errors
Source reference: p. 20 / para. 42The Court emphasized that transparency requires the disclosure of marks but declined to order a broader inquiry into certificate irregularities as the Petitioners had participated in the process and failed on merit
Source reference: p. 18-21Holding
The Court partially allowed the petition by directing the Respondents to declare the marks and ranks obtained by the Petitioners, as well as the marks of the selected candidates for the three specified posts, within four weeks
The Court held that the Petitioners were not entitled to appointment or a further inquiry into selection irregularities because they secured less than the cut-off marks
Source reference: p. 20 / para. 42The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to seek further legal remedies if grievances persist after the disclosure of marks
Source reference: p. 19-21Original Court PDF
Saket Kumar Sonu And OrsvsSashastra Seema Bal And Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in