.webp)
The Delhi High Court has directed the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) to disclose the marks and rankings of three candidates who challenged the recruitment process for Constable posts under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category. The Court, however, declined to order any inquiry into the selection process, holding that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for such intervention.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the 2020 recruitment drive conducted by SSB for various Constable posts, including Cook, Driver and Water Carrier. The petitioners, Saket Kumar Sonu, Vishash Siwach and Shivam Kumar Sharma, participated in all stages of the selection process and claimed that they had successfully cleared the physical tests, written examination, trade tests and medical examination.
Their grievance centered on two issues. First, they alleged that SSB never disclosed the marks secured by candidates at various stages of the recruitment process. Second, they contended that certain selected candidates in the EWS category had been considered despite allegedly possessing invalid EWS certificates.
After the final EWS selection list was published in January 2024, the petitioners found that their names were missing and approached the High Court seeking disclosure of marks and an investigation into alleged irregularities.
Arguments Before the Court
The petitioners argued that transparency was lacking throughout the recruitment exercise. They submitted that neither the cut-off marks nor the marks obtained by selected and unsuccessful candidates were made public.
They also claimed that some selected candidates had submitted EWS certificates that did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the recruitment advertisement. Relying on Supreme Court decisions concerning EWS eligibility, they argued that candidates who failed to possess valid certificates by the prescribed date could not later cure the defect.
SSB, on the other hand, maintained that all EWS certificates were scrutinized through a dedicated verification process. According to the force, candidates whose certificates did not conform to the required format were given an opportunity to submit compliant certificates.
The respondents further informed the Court that the petitioners had not been rejected because of certificate-related issues but because they failed to secure the required cut-off marks.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the petitioners had not sought appointment through the writ petition. Their primary request was for disclosure of marks and rankings.
The Court observed that two of the petitioners had themselves submitted fresh EWS certificates when asked by SSB, and those certificates had been accepted. Therefore, the challenge regarding acceptance of revised certificates could not, by itself, justify an inquiry into the entire recruitment process.
“The petitioners' case has not been rejected on the basis of the EWS certificates, but on the ground they secured less than cut-off marks,” the Bench observed.
The Court also recorded SSB's submission that the petitioners had scored below the prescribed cut-off marks for their respective posts and categories.
Decision
Disposing of the petition, the Delhi High Court directed SSB to disclose the marks and rankings obtained by the petitioners for the posts they had applied for under the EWS category. The Court also ordered disclosure of the marks obtained by the selected candidates for those posts.
The exercise has been directed to be completed within four weeks from receipt of the Court's order. The Bench clarified that if the petitioners remain aggrieved after receiving the information, they would be free to pursue remedies available under law.
Case Details:
Case Title: Saket Kumar Sonu & Ors. v. Sashastra Seema Bal & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 3500/2024
Judges: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Decision Date: 19 June 2026
