Arvind Kumar and Ors. Etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. Etc.
Background
The State of Uttar Pradesh recruits Instructors for its Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs). Under the 2014 Recruitment Rules, a Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate, once an essential qualification, was downgraded to merely a "preferential" one, and the rules provided that where applications exceeded vacancies, only four times the number of vacancies would be shortlisted for interview. Instead of following this shortlisting method, the Selection Committee/State imposed its own additional qualifying/cut-off marks not found anywhere in the 2014 Rules, which screened out a large number of otherwise eligible candidates, including the appellants, even though the number of vacancies advertised exceeded the number of eligible candidates. The appellants challenged this before the Allahabad High Court and, having lost, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that once the rule-making authority had prescribed a specific shortlisting mechanism (calling four times the vacancies for interview), the Selection Committee could not superimpose an additional, unwritten cut-off-marks criterion, doing so was arbitrary and contrary both to the 2014 Rules and their underlying purpose, especially since it left a substantial number of sanctioned vacancies unfilled despite eligible candidates being available. The Court rejected the argument that participation in the flawed process barred relief, since candidates could not have anticipated mid-way that the rules would not be followed. Noting that a large number of vacancies (5,220 out of 7,768 sanctioned posts, per the State's own 2023 legislative disclosure) remained unfilled even years later, the Court held that denying relief merely because the appellants had since aged would be unjust. It allowed the appeals and directed that eligible appellants be considered for appointment against currently vacant posts (with supernumerary posts created if needed), subject to fresh verification of qualifications and antecedents, with appointments to take prospective effect and carry pension/gratuity eligibility but not back wages, seniority, or promotion benefits for the intervening period.
Lesson Learnt
A government body cannot silently add extra eligibility hurdles, like unwritten cut-off marks, that go beyond what its own recruitment rules prescribe; doing so is arbitrary state action, and candidates unfairly excluded by such deviations remain entitled to relief even many years later, so long as vacancies still exist.