Durgapur Steel Plant vs Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 41 OF 2020)

DURGAPUR STEEL PLANT & ORS. ... APPELLANTS

VERSUS BIDHAN CHANDRA CHOWDHURY & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 14491 OF 2021)

JUDGMENT

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the order dated 19.07.2019 and the

judgment dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the

Calcutta High Court (High Court) in a writ petition. By its order

dated 19.07.2019, the High Court granted liberty to the Appellant

No.2 to examine and assess the candidature of the respondents for

appointment to the post of Plant Attendant-cum-Junior

Technician (Plant Attendant), and directed that the result of such

assessment be produced before it. Subsequently, by judgment Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora

dated 27.09.2019, the High Court affirmed the order dated Date: 2026.05.07 17:03:41 IST Reason:

27.03.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal

1 (Tribunal), Calcutta Bench, and dismissed the writ petition

preferred by the appellants.

3. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of these appeals are as

follows. The appellant no.1, namely Durgapur Steel Plant, is one

of the five integrated Steel Plants of Steel Authority of India

Limited, a Public Sector Enterprise of the Central Government. An

advertisement dated 16.10.2007 was issued by Appellant No.1, for

recruitment to the post of Plant Attendant. Initially, 90 posts were

advertised, which were subsequently increased to 150 and

thereafter to 200 posts due to additional requirements. The

selection process comprised a written examination and an

interview, followed by a medical examination of successful

candidates. The conduct of the written examination was

outsourced to an independent agency. In response to the

advertisement, 52,000 applications were received. The written

examination was conducted on 23.03.2008, in which 29,459

candidates appeared; out of these 1,530 candidates qualified and

their names were published on the website.

4. On 17.06.2008, a merit list containing the roll numbers of

candidates shortlisted for interview was published. Thereafter,

appointment offers were issued to 150 candidates, out of whom

2 139 joined service. Subsequently, in view of additional vacancies

arising during the same recruitment cycle, 55 more candidates

were offered appointments, resulting in a total of 194 candidates

joining service.

5. In January 2009, the respondents filed a writ petition seeking a

direction for production of the results of the written examination

and disclosure of the marks obtained by them. They also sought a

direction restraining the appellants from issuing appointment

orders to the selected candidates. Another writ petition was filed

challenging the advertisement dated 04.03.2010 issued by the

appellants, for filling posts of Junior Technician/Operator. By

orders dated 07.02.2012 and 14.02.2012 both writ petitions were

transferred to the Tribunal.

6. The Tribunal, by a common order dated 27.03.2018, inter alia

held:

(i) the marks of the written test were neither produced

before the Tribunal nor disclosed to the respondents;

(ii) despite the pendency of the writ petitions, the records

were not preserved after finalisation of appointments of

194 candidates; and

3

(iii) there was no documentary evidence to establish that

the respondents had failed in the examination.

7. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the appellants to offer

appointments to the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant or

an equivalent post, with suitable age relaxation, within a period of

16 weeks. It was further directed that the respondents would be

placed at the bottom of the seniority list and that the benefits

arising from such appointment would be prospective.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants filed a writ petition

before the High Court. By an interim order dated 19.07.2019, the

High Court directed the Appellant No. 2 to assess the candidature

of the respondents and place the result before it. Thereafter, by

judgment dated 27.09.2019, the High Court dismissed the writ

petition. It is in this factual backdrop that the present appeals

have been filed.

9. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the Appellants

submitted that the conduct of the written examination was

outsourced to an independent agency, and there was no

requirement to maintain or publish the results of all 29,459

candidates who appeared in the examination. It was further

contended that no specific relief of appointment had been sought

4 by the respondents. It was also argued that the qualifications for

the post of Plant Attendant were revised in 2008, and at this stage,

it is not feasible to accommodate the respondents.

10. Per contra, Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, learned counsel for the

Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are

no longer interested in prosecuting the matter, and he has

instructions to contest only on behalf of the Respondent No.1. It

was contended that the recruitment process was ex facie arbitrary

and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as no cut-

off marks, evaluation criteria, or selection methodology was

disclosed either in the advertisement or thereafter. It was further

submitted that the appellants merely published the roll numbers

of the shortlisted candidates without disclosing their marks,

thereby vitiating the entire selection process due to lack of

transparency.

11. It was argued that, owing to non-production and/or destruction of

records, an adverse inference must be drawn against the

appellants, and the relief granted by the Tribunal is justified. It

was also urged that the Respondent No.1 was never shown to have

5 failed in the examination. Reliance was placed on the decisions of

this Court1.

12. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

13. The State or its instrumentalities, while filling vacancies, are

obligated to adhere to the principle of comparative merit of

candidates based on their performance in the recruitment process,

and no discrimination is permissible. It is well settled in law that

a candidate whose name appears in the select list does not acquire

any indefeasible right to appointment to the post in the absence of

any specific rule entitling such appointment2.

14. In the present case, neither the recruitment rules nor the

advertisement required the publication of the marks obtained by

all the candidates, who appeared in the written examination. It is

not the case of the respondents that they had passed the

examination. There is no material on record to indicate that the

respondents had passed in the written examination. Merely

because the respondents were not shown to have failed, no

1 Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. v. State Information Commission & Anr., (2016) 3 SCC 417; Sachin Kumar & Ors., v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors.; (2021) 4 SCC 631, Union of India & Ors., v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146 and Poonam Rani v. State of Haryana & Anr.; (2012) 6 SCC 596.

2 Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh & Ors., (1993) 1 SCC 154; Mohd. Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 582 and State of Manipur & Anr. v. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei & Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 331

6 inference could be drawn that they had passed the written

examination.

15. The written examination was conducted through an independent

agency. Neither the rules nor the advertisement prescribed the

duration for which the records of the selection process were to be

preserved. Therefore, the explanation of the appellants for non-

production of the record that the same were unavailable or had

been destroyed appears to be bona fide. Mere non-production of

such records does not justify drawing an inference that the

respondents had cleared the written test.

16. It is also noteworthy that, in the writ petitions, the respondents

had sought a direction to call for the results of 56 candidates who

were subsequently selected, and had not sought appointment for

themselves. For an additional reason, a direction for appointment

of the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant cannot be

granted. The qualifications for the post of Plant Attendant were

revised in the year 2008, and therefore, the appellants cannot be

directed to appoint the respondents. For the aforesaid reasons, the

order of the Tribunal directing appointment of the respondents to

the post of Plant Attendant, as well as the judgment of the High

Court cannot be sustained.

7

17. It was submitted before us that respondent nos. 2 and 3 are no

longer interested in contesting the matter. Respondent no.1 alone

has continued to pursue the litigation since 2008. As we are

setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court

whereby the respondents were held entitled to appointment to the

post of Plant Attendant, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellants to pay a

sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to respondent no.1

within a period of two months.

18. Accordingly, the impugned order and judgment, in so far as it

directs the appellants to provide appointment to the respondents

to the post of Plant Attendant, is set aside.

19. In the result, the appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order

as to costs.

….………..…………….………….……….J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

....…….……………….………….……….J. [ALOK ARADHE]

NEW DELHI;

MAY 7, 2026.

8