Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Service Law: If a Candidate not Shown failed, it Cannot be persumed that he Passed

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

In Durgapur Steel Plant & Ors. v. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Ors. (Civil Appeals of 2026, arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 41 of 2020 and SLP (Civil) No. 14491 of 2021, 2026 INSC 459), the Supreme Court of India set aside orders directing the recruitment of candidates who challenged a public employment selection process. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Calcutta High Court had previously directed the appellant to appoint the respondents because the management failed to produce or preserve the physical marks and answer sheets of the written test during litigation.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe ruled that an adverse legal inference cannot be drawn against an employer for destroying examination scripts when no statutory retention period is prescribed and the test was outsourced to an independent body. The Court emphasized that simply because a candidate is “not shown to have failed,” it cannot be presumed that they passed the exam. Furthermore, since the minimum technical recruitment qualifications were legally revised during the interim period, no retroactive appointment order could be sustained. However, taking note of Respondent No. 1’s persistent single-handed litigation since 2008, the Court invoked its discretionary equity to direct a lump-sum ex-gratia compensation of ₹5,00,000/- in lieu of employment.

Details

1. Key Parties and Bench

  • Appellants: Durgapur Steel Plant (a subsidiary unit of the Public Sector Enterprise, Steel Authority of India Limited – SAIL) and its management.
  • Respondents (Original Writ Petitioners): Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Others (Unsuccessful selection candidates).
  • Bench: Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon’ble Justice Alok Aradhe.
  • Judgment Delivered By: Hon’ble Justice Alok Aradhe.

2. Factual Matrix and Recruitment History

  • The Advertisement: On October 16, 2007, Durgapur Steel Plant issued a public notification to recruit Plant Attendants. The vacancies dynamically expanded from an initial 90 seats up to 200 posts.
  • The Examination: The selection process layout required a written examination followed by an interview and subsequent medical validation. The administrative handling of the written examination was fully outsourced to an independent evaluation agency. Out of 52,000 initial applicants, 29,459 candidates sat for the test, and 1,530 ultimately qualified for the secondary phase.
  • Shortlisting and Joining: Following the publication of a structured shortlist on June 17, 2008, a total of 194 candidates ultimately accepted appointment offers and joined the enterprise across the multi-tier selection cycle.
  • The Legal Challenge: In January 2009, the respondents approached the court via a writ petition, demanding full disclosure of their individual marks and the production of the absolute score sheets of the written test, while trying to halt further job deployments. The case was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2012.

3. Procedural History and Directives of Lower Forums

A. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Order

On March 27, 2018, the Tribunal ruled against the Durgapur Steel Plant. It underscored that:

  • The actual numerical marks of the written evaluation were never openly disclosed or brought into evidence.
  • The administration had failed to preserve the raw evaluation data while the legal challenge was active.
  • No definitive documentary evidence was available to verify that the respondents had actually failed the examination.

Consequently, the Tribunal directed the management to issue appointment offers to the respondents for the post of Plant Attendant (or an equivalent vacancy) with necessary age relaxations, placing them at the bottom of the seniority ladder.

B. The High Court Judgment

The management challenged the CAT directive before the Calcutta High Court. By an interim order on July 19, 2019, the High Court directed the management to assess the respondents’ current credentials. Ultimately, on September 27, 2019, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the Tribunal’s decision, which led to the filing of the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

4. Primary Legal Controversies Addressed

  1. Whether an employer’s failure to preserve or produce outsourced raw examination answer records during a pending challenge justifies an automatic legal presumption that the contesting applicants passed the examination.
  2. Whether public sector entities are legally obligated to publish the absolute score sheets and individual marks of all participating candidates when neither the governing recruitment rules nor the tender advertisements mandate such action.
  3. Whether a court can issue an order for employment when the mandatory minimum eligibility qualifications for that specific post were legally altered or updated by the company during the course of the litigation.

5. Observations and Landmark Rulings of the Supreme Court

A. Right to Selection and Burden of Proof

The Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental principle that the state and its instrumentalities must strictly abide by comparative merit. However, the inclusion of a person’s name in a broad selection registry does not generate an unassailable or indefeasible right to clear an appointment. The Bench pointed out that the respondents never formally asserted or demonstrated that they had actually passed the examination. The Court held that a candidate cannot be legally presumed to have passed a competitive exam simply because there is an absence of formal documentation explicitly proving they failed.

B. Bona Fide Record Destruction vs. Adverse Inference

The Court observed that because the written examination was outsourced to an outside agency and there was no internal guideline prescribing a minimum duration to retain evaluation scripts, the company’s explanation that the old files were destroyed appeared completely genuine (bona fide). Thus, drawing an adverse legal inference against the employer solely based on the non-production of these old documents was entirely unjustified.

C. Regulatory Impediments due to Altered Job Qualifications

The Court highlighted a structural barrier to granting employment: the baseline criteria and technical qualifications for the post of Plant Attendant were formally modified and updated by the enterprise back in 2008. Because of this structural revision, the judiciary cannot issue a directive forcing the employer to hire individuals under obsolete standards. Therefore, the core appointment directives issued by the Tribunal and the High Court were declared legally unsustainable.

D. Grant of Equitable Compensation

The Court observed that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had abandoned the litigation. However, Respondent No. 1 had single-handedly pursued the legal battle since 2008. While setting aside the employment mandates, the Court noted that the specific circumstances warranted a fair remedy. Relying on equity, the Court directed the appellants to pay a financial award of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to Respondent No. 1 within two months.

6. Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the prior judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Calcutta High Court regarding actual employment placement. The appeals were resolved with a directive to pay the specified ₹5,00,000/- ex-gratia amount to Respondent No. 1, with no order as to costs.

2026 INSC 459

Durgapur Steel Plant & Ors. V. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Ors. (D.O.J. 07.05.2026)

2026 INSC 459 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Supreme Court Judgment Summary 15th Sep, 2026

September 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court Judgment Summary 15th Sep, 2026

A Definitive Review on Disability Pension Rights for Ex-Servicemen

This landmark batch of appeals brought by the Union of India challenged various orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and High Courts, which had granted the disability element of service pensions to ex-servicemen. These former personnel had been assessed by Release Medical Boards (RMB) as having disabilities that were “Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated” (NANA) by military service. The Supreme Court addressed the core tension between the protective, beneficial jurisprudence established in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India (governed by the Entitlement Rules 1982) and the restrictive framework introduced by the subsequent Entitlement Rules 2008. Crucially, the Court undertook a deep constitutional and administrative review of the legitimacy of the 2008 rules, evaluating whether they possessed binding legal force and whether they could dilute established beneficial entitlements.

2026 INSC 993 : Union of India & Ors. v. Col. NC Isaac (Retd.) and Connected Appeals (D.O.J. 15.09.2026)

Next Story

Setting Aside Ineligible Selection to Protect Merit

September 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal filed by Sunita Lahu Panchpande, upholding the Bombay High Court’s judgment that had set aside her appointment as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik District. The appellant, who originally served as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon District, applied for and was appointed to the post in Nashik despite an express restriction in the advertisement and the governing Government Resolution (G.R.) dated November 17, 2001, mandating that applicants must possess ten years of work experience specifically within Nashik District. Although the Divisional Commissioner had erroneously issued a clarification stating that experience from other districts was acceptable, the Supreme Court ruled that a subordinate administrative official cannot issue clarifications contrary to statutory G.R.s and recruitment advertisements. Citing the doctrine that appointments made in disregard of advertised qualifications amount to a fraud on the public, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order directing the appointment of the eligible wait-listed candidate (the sixth respondent) in her place, while acknowledging the compassionate observation permitting the appellant’s accommodation in her home district.

  • Core Issues Addressed: The Supreme Court evaluated whether a candidate lacking the mandatory territorial work experience stipulated in a recruitment advertisement and government resolution can retain public employment based on an erroneous administrative clarification.
  • Mandatory Territorial Eligibility: A conjoint reading of the 2001 Government Resolution and the specific conditions of the advertisement clearly established that applicants must have accumulated their ten years of qualifying experience as an Anganwadi Sevika within the same district (Nashik).
  • Incompetence of Administrative Clarifications: The Divisional Commissioner lacked the legal authority to issue a clarification that ran completely contrary to the explicit text of the 2001 G.R.; any genuine doubt ought to have been referred back to the State Government.
  • Fraud on Public Aspirants: Reaffirming the principle laid down in Tripura Sundari Devi, the Court emphasized that appointing ineligible candidates in violation of advertised terms without an express relaxation clause constitutes a fraud on public candidates who possessed better qualifications but refrained from applying.
  • Final Outcome: The appeal was dismissed, the High Court’s judgment was upheld, the sixth respondent was awarded the rightful appointment with benefits to be disbursed within two months, and the appellant was granted time until September 30, 2026, to transition out of the post.

2026 INSC 1002

Sunita Lahu Panchpande v. The District Collector & Ors. (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

2026 INSC 1002 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Acquittal Under NDPS Act Due to Flawed Sampling and Unproven Contraband

September 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India allowed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants Abdul Rajik and Govind, setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had convicted them under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The appellants had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 8 years respectively, following allegations that they were caught carrying charas. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution fundamentally failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized samples, pointing out severe lapses, including the total non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act (drawing samples without a Magistrate), missing entries in the malkhana register regarding the exit of samples, a silent carrier constable, and an unexplained five-day delay before the samples reached the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Consequently, the FSL report became untrustworthy, and with no other reliable scientific proof that the recovered material was actually charas, the Court granted the appellants the benefit of the doubt and acquitted them.

  • Core Issues Addressed: The Supreme Court examined the validity of convictions under the NDPS Act concerning the integrity of link evidence, the absolute necessity of maintaining a secure chain of custody for seized contraband samples, and the legal consequences of failing to comply with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.
  • Breach in Link Evidence and Custody: The prosecution failed to prove the safe transit of the samples from the malkhana to the FSL. Crucially, the forwarding letter from the Superintendent of Police was dated December 1, 2004, whereas the FSL recorded receipt on December 6, 2004, leaving an unexplained five-day gap with zero evidence as to whose custody the samples remained in during this period.
  • Non-Compliance with Section 52-A: The investigating officer completely omitted the mandatory statutory safeguard of drawing representative samples in the presence of an Executive or Judicial Magistrate, which severely dented the integrity of the seizure and sampling process.
  • Exclusion of the FSL Report: Due to the shattered chain of custody and procedural flaws, the FSL report (Exhibit P-46) lost its evidentiary value and had to be discarded. Furthermore, the informal spot-testing method (burning a small piece of the substance) was deemed unscientific and insufficient to prove the material was charas.
  • Final Outcome: The appeals were allowed, the judgments of conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges with their bail bonds discharged.

2026 INSC 1001

Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P. (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

2026 INSC 1001 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

The Finality of Tax Settlements: Barring Reassessment After ITSC Orders

September 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal filed by the Revenue (Income Tax Department), upholding the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had quashed a reassessment notice and order issued against the respondent-assessee, M/s. Omaxe Limited. The core controversy revolved around whether the Assessing Officer (AO) retained the jurisdiction to reopen a concluded assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to disallow housing project deductions under Section 80IB(10) after the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) had already passed a final settlement order under Section 245D(4). The Supreme Court ruled that Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act is a self-contained code. Once an application for settlement is admitted and a final order is issued, it attains absolute finality under Section 245-I, and the regular assessment machinery cannot be invoked to bypass this conclusiveness. The Court clarified that if the Revenue wishes to challenge a settlement order on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, its sole exclusive remedy is to approach the ITSC directly under Section 245D(6)—not to initiate parallel reassessment proceedings.

  • Core Issue Addressed: The Supreme Court examined whether an Assessing Officer can independently issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 to disallow deductions (such as under Section 80IB(10)) that were part of the total income considerations during a concluded proceeding before the Settlement Commission.
  • Exclusive Jurisdiction of the ITSC: The Court reaffirmed that upon the admission of a settlement application, the ITSC assumes exclusive jurisdiction over the case for that assessment year, placing the regular assessment machinery under statutory abeyance pursuant to Section 245F(2).
  • Conclusiveness of Settlement Orders: Under Section 245-I, orders passed by the ITSC under Section 245D(4) are final and conclusive on the matters stated therein, barring the Revenue from splitting an assessment to re-litigate items through standard reassessment channels.
  • Exclusive Remedy for Fraud or Misrepresentation: If the Revenue discovers that a settlement order was obtained through misrepresentation or concealment, Section 245D(6) provides the exclusive statutory pathway to declare the settlement void by moving the ITSC directly, a route the Revenue unsuccessfully attempted and exhausted in this very case.
  • Final Outcome: The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, confirming that the regular tax authorities cannot initiate parallel reassessments once an ITSC settlement order has attained finality.

2026 INSC 1000

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another v. M/s. Omaxe Limited (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

2026 INSC 1000 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins