Durgapur Steel Plant & Orsv.Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Ors

Legal Analysis: Durgapur Steel Plant & Ors. vs. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 459
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Date of Decision: May 7, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeals under Article 136 against High Court order affirming Tribunal’s direction to appoint candidates to the post of Plant Attendant.

Synopsis of the Judgment

An advertisement for Plant Attendant posts was issued in 2007. The written examination was outsourced; results of 29,459 candidates were not published. Only roll numbers of shortlisted candidates (1,530) were disclosed. The respondents (unsuccessful candidates) filed writ petitions after appointments were completed, alleging non-disclosure of marks and non-preservation of records. The Tribunal directed the appellants to appoint the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant with prospective benefits. The High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court set aside the directions, holding that: (i) there was no requirement to publish marks of all candidates; (ii) the respondents failed to prove they had passed the examination; (iii) no indefeasible right to appointment exists from mere participation; (iv) qualifications had been revised in 2008. However, considering the long pendency (since 2008), the Court directed payment of ₹5 lakhs to respondent No.1 as compensation.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Durgapur Steel Plant & Ors. vs. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. Arising out of SLP(C) No. 41/2020 and SLP(C) No. 14491/2021 Bench Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe Date of Decision May 7, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 459 Appeal From Order dated 19.07.2019 and judgment dated 27.09.2019 of Calcutta High Court

2. Legal Framework

Laws/Provisions:

• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14 (non‑arbitrariness), Article 16 (equality in public employment)

• Service jurisprudence: No indefeasible right to appointment from inclusion in select list

Precedents Cited:
None specifically named, but the Court relied on the settled principle that a candidate whose name appears in a select list does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment unless the rules so provide.

3. Relevant Facts

• Advertisement (16.10.2007): Durgapur Steel Plant invited applications for Plant Attendant posts. Initial 90 posts increased to 200.

• Selection process: Written examination (outsourced) + interview + medical examination.

• Participation: 52,000 applications; 29,459 appeared; 1,530 qualified for interview; 194 eventually appointed.

• Respondents’ grievance: Marks of written examination not disclosed; records not preserved; they sought production of results and a direction to restrain appointments.

• Tribunal order (27.03.2018): Directed appellants to offer appointment to respondents (or equivalent post) with age relaxation, placed at bottom of seniority, benefits prospective.

• High Court (27.09.2019): Dismissed appellants’ writ petition affirming Tribunal.

• Present appeals: Appellants challenged appointment directions.

• Note: Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 lost interest; only Respondent No.1 continued.

4. Issues

1. Whether the non‑publication of marks of all candidates and non‑preservation of records vitiates the entire selection process, entitling unsuccessful candidates to appointment?

2. Whether the Tribunal and High Court could direct appointment of the respondents in the absence of proof that they had cleared the written examination?

3. Whether the respondents had any vested right to appointment merely because they had participated in the selection process?

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. No requirement to publish all marks (Paras 13-14):
Neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement required publication of marks of all candidates who appeared. The respondents did not establish that they had passed the written examination. Non‑production of records (due to outsourcing and time lapse) was bona fide; no adverse inference that respondents had cleared the test.

B. No indefeasible right to appointment (Para 13):
It is settled law that a candidate whose name appears in a select list does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment. Here, the respondents were not even in the select list – they had not cleared the written examination.

C. Revised qualifications (Para 16):
The qualifications for the post were revised in 2008. At this stage, the appellants cannot be directed to appoint the respondents.

D. Relief – compensation instead of appointment (Paras 17-18):
Considering the long pendency of litigation (since 2008) and the peculiar facts, the Court directed the appellants to pay ₹5,00,000 to respondent No.1 (the only respondent still pursuing the matter) within two months. The direction for appointment was set aside.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Non‑publication of marks does not automatically vitiate selection unless the rules or advertisement specifically require it.

• Mere non‑preservation of records, when the examination was outsourced and no specific retention period was prescribed, does not justify drawing an adverse inference that the candidates had passed.

• A candidate who cannot prove that he cleared the written examination cannot claim appointment merely because the selection process may have had some opacity.

• Long pendency of litigation does not entitle a candidate to appointment if no substantive right existed, but compensation may be awarded in exceptional circumstances.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

• The Court examined the advertisement and found no clause requiring disclosure of individual marks. The selection process was conducted through an independent agency, and records were not required to be preserved indefinitely.

• The respondents had not produced any material to show that they had obtained the minimum qualifying marks. The Tribunal’s inference that “they were not shown to have failed” was held to be insufficient – the burden was on the respondents to prove they had passed.

• The direction for appointment was also impractical because the qualification norms had changed in 2008 (after the advertisement). Appointing the respondents now would violate the revised standards.

• However, the Court acknowledged that the respondents had been litigating since 2008. As a one‑time equitable measure, it awarded ₹5 lakhs to respondent No.1 (who alone continued the fight) by way of compensation.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment correctly restates the principle that participation in a selection process does not create a right to appointment. It refuses to draw an adverse inference from non‑preservation of records when no rule required preservation. The compensation award is a pragmatic way to close a long‑pending matter without granting undeserved appointment.

Potential concerns: The respondents may argue that the lack of transparency (non‑disclosure of marks) violated Article 14. However, the Court held that the rules did not mandate such disclosure, and the respondents failed to show prejudice. The compensation of ₹5 lakhs (instead of appointment) is a reasonable compromise.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited by public sector employers to resist claims for appointment based on procedural irregularities where the candidate cannot prove merit. It also clarifies that courts should not direct appointment after qualification rules have changed.

9. Final Outcome

• Civil Appeals disposed of.

• Impugned order and judgment of the High Court, insofar as they directed appointment of respondents to the post of Plant Attendant, set aside.

• Appellants directed to pay ₹5,00,000 to respondent No.1 within two months.

• No order as to costs.

• Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (who lost interest) not entitled to any relief.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

For employers (PSUs, government departments): When outsourcing recruitment exams, preserve records at least until the selection process is fully challenged. However, if no rule mandates indefinite preservation, non‑availability of old records does not by itself entitle unsuccessful candidates to appointment. Also, after qualifications are revised, courts are unlikely to direct appointment of candidates from an earlier process.

For candidates: If you challenge a selection process on grounds of non‑disclosure of marks or non‑preservation of records, you must also prove that you would have succeeded (i.e., that you had the requisite merit). Mere procedural irregularity without proof of prejudice is insufficient. Also, do not wait for years; any right, if any, must be asserted promptly.

For courts: Before directing appointment, examine whether the candidate has proved that he cleared the examination. Do not draw adverse inferences against the employer without evidence that the candidate was actually successful. Also, consider whether qualification norms have changed – appointment after revision may be impermissible.

11. Court Lines

“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.” (Para 13)

“Merely because the respondents were not shown to have failed, no inference can be drawn that they had passed the written examination.” (Para 14)

“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 … appears to be bona fide.” (Para 15)

“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.” (Para 16)

“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.” (Para 17)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For employers: When defending against claims of unfair selection, point out that the candidate must prove he was successful. Mere non‑disclosure of marks is not sufficient to vitiate the entire process unless the rules required disclosure. Also, if records are destroyed after a reasonable period, offer an explanation (e.g., outsourcing, time lapse) – the court may accept it as bona fide.

For candidates: If you challenge a selection process, move the court quickly and seek preservation of records. If you cannot prove that you actually passed the examination (e.g., by obtaining your score through RTI if available), your chance of getting appointment is low. Consider seeking compensation instead of appointment if the process was truly arbitrary but you cannot prove merit.

For courts: Before granting appointment as a remedy, require the candidate to produce prima facie evidence of having cleared the examination. An adverse inference from non‑production of records is not automatic – it requires a finding that the employer deliberately destroyed records to hide the candidate’s success. When qualification rules have changed, appointment should not be ordered; compensation may be an appropriate alternative.