Summary
Candidates provisionally selected before correction of a faulty answer key had no vested right to appointment when the lawful revised result placed them below the category cut-off. Completion of medical and antecedent checks and supply of recruitment forms did not alter that position before an appointment offer. The Court set aside mandamus directing their appointment; one candidate’s voluntary resignation from another force did not justify preference over higher-ranked candidates.
Issues
- Whether provisional selection and recruitment formalities created an enforceable right despite the corrected merit result.
- Whether personal hardship justified appointment ahead of higher-ranked candidates.
Held
- Inclusion in a selection list does not itself create a vested right to appointment. Recruitment decisions must nevertheless be bona fide, non-arbitrary and respectful of comparative merit. Here revision occurred during an unfinished process to correct established answer-key errors. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Both candidates fell below the revised OBC cut-off, with many candidates ranked above them. Their being the only claimants before the court did not entitle them to appointment contrary to law. No offers had been issued before the process was held in abeyance and results corrected. (¶¶ 14, 16, 17)
- Umesh Kumar resigned from the RPF before recruitment concluded or any appointment offer. That personal decision did not justify a mandamus to appoint him. The protection afforded in Rajesh Kumar to persons already serving for years was distinguishable. (¶¶ 15, 16)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs. Both Delhi High Court judgments directing appointment set aside and the underlying writ petitions dismissed; pending applications dismissed.