In a significant ruling concerning public recruitment, transparency in selection processes, and the limits of judicial intervention in employment matters, the Supreme Court of India in Durgapur Steel Plant & Ors. v. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Ors. (2026 INSC 459) held that merely because unsuccessful candidates’ marks were not published, no inference can be drawn that such candidates had passed the examination. The Court clarified that in the absence of any statutory rule or recruitment condition requiring publication of all candidates’ marks, non-disclosure by itself cannot invalidate the recruitment process or justify appointment of unsuccessful aspirants.
The judgment addresses an important issue frequently raised in recruitment disputes, whether a lack of transparency in publishing results can create presumptions in favour of candidates challenging the process. The Court reaffirmed the principle that public employment must be governed by comparative merit and that judicial sympathy cannot replace legal entitlement.
This ruling is also noteworthy because the Court reversed the orders of both the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Calcutta High Court, which had effectively directed the appointment of candidates merely because recruitment records were unavailable and the employer could not demonstrate that the candidates had failed.
Facts of the Case
The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated by Durgapur Steel Plant, one of the integrated steel plants of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), a public sector enterprise of the Central Government. An advertisement dated 16 October 2007 was issued for recruitment to the post of Plant Attendant-cum-Junior Technician (Plant Attendant). Initially, 90 vacancies were advertised, but due to additional requirements, the number was subsequently increased to 150 and then to 200.
The selection process consisted of:
- Written examination
- Interview
- Medical examination for successful candidates
The written examination was outsourced to an independent agency. A large number of applications, approximately 52,000, were received. Out of these, 29,459 candidates appeared for the written test held on 23 March 2008. Following evaluation, 1,530 candidates qualified, and their names were published on the official website.
Subsequently, on 17 June 2008, a merit list containing roll numbers of shortlisted candidates for interview was published. Appointment letters were initially issued to 150 candidates, of whom 139 joined service. Due to additional vacancies arising during the same recruitment cycle, 55 more candidates were offered appointment, bringing the total number of appointees to 194.
Genesis of the Litigation
In January 2009, certain unsuccessful candidates approached the High Court by filing writ petitions. Their primary grievance was that the results of the written examination and individual marks had not been disclosed. They sought directions for production of results and restraint against issuance of appointments to selected candidates. Another writ petition was later filed challenging a subsequent recruitment advertisement. Eventually, both petitions were transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench.
The Tribunal, after hearing the matter, passed an order in March 2018 in favour of the applicants.
Tribunal’s Findings
The Tribunal found fault with the recruitment authority on several grounds:
- First, it observed that marks obtained in the written examination had neither been produced before the Tribunal nor disclosed to the applicants.
- Second, despite pendency of litigation, recruitment records had not been preserved after completion of appointments.
- Third, there was no documentary evidence demonstrating that the applicants had failed in the written examination.
On this basis, the Tribunal directed the appellants to appoint the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant or an equivalent post with age relaxation. It further directed that they be placed at the bottom of the seniority list, with only prospective benefits.
This was an extraordinary direction, effectively converting uncertainty about recruitment records into a right to public employment.
Proceedings Before the High Court
The employer challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the Calcutta High Court.
During pendency of the writ petition, the High Court passed an interim order directing reassessment of the respondents’ candidature and production of results before the Court. Subsequently, by final judgment dated 27 September 2019, the High Court dismissed the employer’s petition and affirmed the Tribunal’s decision.
Aggrieved, Durgapur Steel Plant and associated appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The principal issues before the Supreme Court were:
- Whether non-publication of marks of unsuccessful candidates permits an inference that they had passed the written examination.
- Whether failure to preserve recruitment records justifies adverse inference against the employer.
- Whether courts can direct appointment of candidates absent proof of selection or entitlement.
- Whether transparency concerns alone can invalidate the recruitment process.
Arguments by the Appellants
The appellants argued that the written examination had been conducted by an independent outsourced agency.
They submitted that neither recruitment rules nor the advertisement required publication or preservation of marks of all 29,459 candidates. Therefore, the Tribunal’s insistence on production of such records was misplaced.
It was further argued that:
- The respondents had never specifically sought appointment for themselves in the original writ petitions.
- Recruitment qualifications for the post had been revised in 2008.
- It was no longer feasible to accommodate the respondents after such a long lapse of time.
Thus, the Tribunal’s direction for appointment was legally unsustainable.
Arguments by the Respondents
The respondents attacked the recruitment process as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Their arguments included:
- No cut-off marks were disclosed.
- Evaluation criteria were not published.
- Selection methodology lacked transparency.
- Only roll numbers of shortlisted candidates were published without marks.
They contended that this absence of transparency vitiated the selection process. The respondents also argued that since records had been destroyed or were unavailable, an adverse inference should be drawn against the employer.
According to them, if the employer could not show that they had failed, they should be presumed eligible.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
1) Public Employment Must Be Merit-Based
The Supreme Court began by reaffirming a settled constitutional principle. The State and its instrumentalities must fill public posts strictly on the basis of comparative merit. Any recruitment process must ensure fairness and non-discrimination. This principle flows directly from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Public employment is not a matter of grace or presumption; it is governed by objective merit.
2) No Right to Appointment Merely from Participation
The Court reiterated another established rule: even inclusion in a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment unless specific rules provide otherwise.
Therefore, candidates who had not even established selection could certainly not claim appointment.
3) Non-Publication of Marks Does Not Mean Success
This was the core holding of the judgment. The Court noted that neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement required publication of marks obtained by all candidates in the written examination. Importantly, the respondents never demonstrated that they had passed the written test.
The Court clearly held:
Merely because the respondents were not shown to have failed, no inference could be drawn that they had passed.
This reasoning rejects speculative assumptions in recruitment litigation. Burden lies on the claimant to establish legal entitlement. Absence of contrary evidence does not create a presumption of success.
4) Destruction or Non-Availability of Records
The Tribunal had drawn an adverse inference because recruitment records were unavailable. The Supreme Court rejected this approach.
The Court observed:
- Examination was conducted through an independent agency.
- No rule prescribed retention period for records.
- Employer’s explanation regarding destruction/unavailability appeared bona fide.
Therefore, mere non-production of records did not justify presuming that respondents had qualified. This is an important clarification on evidentiary burdens. Adverse inference cannot be drawn automatically. It requires circumstances indicating suppression or mala fides.
5) Relief Cannot Exceed Pleadings
The Court also pointed out a procedural defect. In their original writ petitions, the respondents sought production of the results of selected candidates, not appointment for themselves. Thus, the Tribunal exceeded the scope of relief sought. Courts ordinarily do not grant remedies beyond pleadings unless exceptional circumstances exist.
6) Changed Recruitment Conditions
The Court additionally noted that qualifications for the post had been revised in 2008. As a result, even the practical implementation of the Tribunal’s direction was impossible. This provided another reason to reject appointment directions.
Compensation Despite Employer’s Success
Interestingly, although the employer succeeded, the Supreme Court granted limited relief to one respondent. Respondent No. 1 alone had continued litigation since 2008. Considering peculiar facts and long litigation, the Court directed payment of ₹5 lakh to him within two months. This reflects equitable balancing. While denying the appointment, the Court acknowledged prolonged litigation hardship.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling will have practical implications for public recruitment disputes. Many challenges are based on allegations of opacity, incomplete disclosures, or unavailable records.
The Supreme Court’s approach suggests:
- transparency concerns alone do not invalidate recruitment,
- claimants must establish actual prejudice;
- courts should avoid speculative assumptions;
- appointment cannot be used as a compensatory remedy.
The judgment protects administrative recruitment processes from retrospective destabilisation where no legal violation is clearly established.
At the same time, it does not excuse arbitrariness where rules actually require disclosure.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Durgapur Steel Plant v. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury reinforces a foundational principle of public employment law: appointment to public posts must rest on proven merit, not conjecture.
The Court firmly rejected the assumption that failure to publish marks of unsuccessful candidates implies they had passed the examination. It clarified that the absence of records or non-disclosure, by itself, cannot generate legal entitlement where none exists.
By setting aside the Tribunal and High Court orders, the Supreme Court restored doctrinal clarity in recruitment jurisprudence, transparency is important, but judicial presumptions cannot replace evidence, rules, or comparative merit.
For recruitment authorities, the judgment offers protection against speculative litigation. For candidates, it is a reminder that legal rights in public employment must be established, not presumed.