Supreme Court news: Reinforcing the primacy of rule-based recruitment in public employment, the Supreme Court has said that individual hardships cannot override uniform selection procedures, holding that “grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance” in such matters.
The Supreme Court said that nearly one lakh candidates participated in the recruitment process under the same conditions, and allowing exceptions for one individual would undermine fairness and equality. (Image enhanced using AI)
Supreme Court: Recruitment rules binding
Setting aside both orders, the Supreme Court emphasised that the terms of recruitment were explicit and non-negotiable. The advertisement clearly stipulated that the schedule for PE and MT was final and could not be altered under any circumstances.
The court noted, “The stakes are high, when it comes to public employment and opportunities like these can be life changing for young people. When chances are rare, one needs to grab them with both hands.”
The top court noted that nearly one lakh candidates participated in the recruitment process under the same conditions, and allowing exceptions for one individual would undermine fairness and equality.
“Public employment is scarce. The youth of the country eagerly await such employment opportunities, as and when the same are thrown open, with fervent hopes for a brighter future,” the court said.
Story continues below this ad
The court examined whether a candidate who skipped a mandatory test citing illness could seek rescheduling despite explicit rules making the schedule final, ultimately ruling that such relaxation cannot be claimed as a right.
Recruitment drive, missed opportunity
The case arose from a Delhi Police recruitment notification issued on September 1, 2023, for the post of constable (executive). The respondent, Uttam Kumar, had successfully cleared the initial stage of the selection process and was scheduled to appear for the PE and MT on January 14, 2024.
However, he failed to appear on the scheduled date, citing illness, specifically cold, cough, fever, headache, and dizziness. He claimed to have submitted representations on January 13, 14, and 25, 2024, seeking rescheduling of the test.
CAT, high court relief
When no response was received, the aspirant approached the CAT, which, by its order dated July 7, 2025, directed Delhi Police authorities to allow him to take the test with a subsequent batch.
Story continues below this ad
This direction was upheld on September 3, 2025, effectively granting the candidate a second chance on equitable grounds.
Doubts over representations, conduct
The court expressed serious reservations about the respondent’s claims regarding his representations stating that there was no acknowledgment or proof of receipt of two of the representations.
The court said that the first representation was admittedly not accepted by the officer concerned and the candidate himself stated that he was able to move around on January 13, 2024, raising doubts about his inability to appear the next day.
The bench held that even if the representations were assumed to have been submitted, non-response from authorities does not create a legal right to rescheduling.
Story continues below this ad
‘At least show up’
A key aspect of the ruling was the Supreme Court’s emphasis on minimum expected diligence from candidates. It noted that the aspirant did not even attempt to appear at the test venue to explain his condition or seek accommodation.
“The minimum that one could expect… was to report for the PE&MT, cite his inability… and request rescheduling,” the court said, adding that “not showing up and expecting a second chance… demonstrates a lack of drive and initiative.”
The bench also remarked that such conduct was particularly concerning for someone aspiring to join the police force, where discipline and commitment are essential.
Rejecting arguments that the candidate’s background warranted leniency, the court made it clear that equitable considerations cannot override recruitment rules.
Story continues below this ad
“Merely because one belongs to the backward community cannot be the decisive factor for tilting the scales,” the judgment held.
The court reiterated that public employment must ensure a level playing field, free from subjective or discretionary relaxations.
Final verdict
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the CAT’s order dated July 7, 2025 and the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated September 3, 2025
It held that judicial forums cannot disrupt recruitment processes by introducing exceptions not contemplated in the rules.
The Supreme Court said that nearly one lakh candidates participated in the recruitment process under the same conditions, and allowing exceptions for one individual would undermine fairness and equality. (Image enhanced using AI)
