The Supreme Court has set aside orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Calcutta High Court that had directed Durgapur Steel Plant to appoint candidates involved in a long-running recruitment dispute dating back to 2007. However, considering the prolonged litigation, the Court directed the employer to pay ₹5 lakh compensation to one of the candidates who continued pursuing the case.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a recruitment drive conducted by Durgapur Steel Plant, a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), for the post of Plant Attendant-cum-Junior Technician in 2007. Initially, 90 vacancies were advertised, but the number was later increased to 200 due to operational requirements.
According to the judgment, over 52,000 applications were received, and nearly 29,500 candidates appeared in the written examination conducted through an independent agency. Eventually, 194 candidates joined service after the selection process.
Some unsuccessful candidates challenged the process, alleging lack of transparency because marks and evaluation criteria were not disclosed. They also questioned the preservation of recruitment records.
Tribunal and High Court Orders
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, had ruled in favour of the candidates in 2018. The Tribunal observed that the marks of the written examination had not been disclosed and records were not preserved despite pending litigation. It concluded that there was no proof that the candidates had failed the examination.
Based on these findings, the Tribunal directed the authorities to appoint the candidates to the post of Plant Attendant or an equivalent position with age relaxation. The Calcutta High Court later upheld that direction.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe disagreed with the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal and the High Court.
The Court observed that neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement required publication of marks of all candidates who appeared in the written examination. It further noted that the candidates themselves had not established that they had qualified in the examination.
“The State or its instrumentalities, while filling vacancies, are obligated to adhere to the principle of comparative merit,” the Bench said, while also reiterating that inclusion in a select list does not create an automatic right to appointment.
The Court also accepted the employer’s explanation that the records were unavailable because the examination had been conducted by an external agency and there was no rule requiring indefinite preservation of documents.
Importantly, the Bench noted that the original writ petitions had mainly sought disclosure of results and not direct appointment to the posts.
Setting aside the Tribunal’s appointment direction and the High Court judgment, the Supreme Court held that appointments could not be granted merely because recruitment records were unavailable or marks were not disclosed.
At the same time, the Court took note of the fact that one respondent had continued the litigation since 2008. In the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the matter, it directed Durgapur Steel Plant to pay ₹5 lakh to that respondent within two months.
Case Title: Durgapur Steel Plant & Ors. v. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Ors.
