Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court

"Mere non-production of such records does not justify drawing an inference that the respondents had cleared the written test," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 7, 2026, held that a court or tribunal cannot direct the appointment of candidates merely because the employer failed to produce old selection records or had not published the marks of every candidate who appeared in the examination.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that in the absence of specific rules requiring the publication of marks or the long-term preservation of records, no adverse inference of "arbitrariness" can be drawn against the recruiting authority.

The dispute originated from a 2007 recruitment drive by the Durgapur Steel Plant for the post of Plant Attendant. After the selection process concluded and 194 candidates joined service, certain unsuccessful candidates approached the court seeking their marks and eventually their appointment, alleging a lack of transparency. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Calcutta High Court concurrently directed the plant to appoint the respondents, primarily because the management failed to produce the written examination marks and records during the litigation.

The primary question before the court was whether the non-production of decades-old recruitment records justifies an adverse inference that the candidates had actually passed the examination. The court was also called upon to determine if a candidate has an indefeasible right to the publication of marks of all applicants when the recruitment rules are silent on such a requirement.

No Indefeasible Right To Appointment

The Court began by reiterating the established principle that the State and its instrumentalities are obligated to adhere to comparative merit during recruitment. However, the bench clarified that even candidates who find their names on a select list do not acquire an absolute right to be appointed.

"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 appointment," the bench noted, placing reliance on precedents such as UT of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh.

No Obligation To Publish Marks Of All Candidates

The bench scrutinized the recruitment advertisement and the governing rules, noting that they did not mandate the publication of marks for every individual who appeared in the written test. Out of over 52,000 applicants, nearly 30,000 had appeared for the examination, which was conducted through an independent third-party agency.

Court Clarifies Transparency Requirements In Recruitment The Court observed that transparency does not necessarily imply the publication of the results of every single candidate unless the rules specifically demand it. The bench remarked that since there was no material on record to indicate that the respondents had actually passed the examination, a direction for their appointment was legally untenable.

"Merely because the respondents were not shown to have failed, no inference could be drawn that they had passed the written examination."

Bona Fide Destruction Of Records Prevents Adverse Inference

Addressing the Tribunal's decision to draw an adverse inference against the Durgapur Steel Plant for not producing the marks, the Supreme Court held that the explanation provided by the appellants for the unavailability of records appeared bona fide. The Court noted that neither the rules nor the advertisement prescribed a duration for which the records were to be preserved.

Adverse Inference Cannot Be Drawn Mechanically The bench held that the mere non-production of records, especially when they might have been destroyed in the normal course of business after the finalization of appointments, does not justify a presumption that the respondents had cleared the test. The Court emphasized that such a leap in logic by the lower forums was an error of law.

"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."

Feasibility Of Appointment And Revised Qualifications

The Court further highlighted a practical hurdle in the respondents' claim. It was noted that the qualifications for the post of Plant Attendant were revised as far back as 2008. Consequently, the Court held that the appellants could not be directed to appoint the respondents to a post for which the eligibility criteria had changed long ago.

Relief To Respondent No. 1 In Peculiar Circumstances

While setting aside the directions for appointment, the Court took note of the fact that Respondent No. 1 had been pursuing the litigation since 2008. Although the legal merits were in favor of the appellants, the Court exercised its discretion to provide some closure to the long-standing dispute involving a single persistent litigant.

Directs Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs

"As we are setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court whereby the respondents were held entitled to appointment... 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/- to respondent no.1," the bench ordered.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court and the Tribunal erred in directing appointments based on a lack of record-keeping by the employer. The appeals were disposed of by setting aside the direction for appointment but granting monetary compensation to the first respondent for the 18-year-long litigation journey.

Date of Decision: May 7, 2026