Case at a Glance
A commerce graduate applied for one of 40 Junior Clerk/Typist posts advertised by the university now known as KGMU in January 2005, took the typing test and was interviewed in October 2005 — but no final result was ever declared, though about 21 candidates were allowed to join. After her petition remained pending for 21 years, the Allahabad High Court held that once a selection process is undertaken it must be concluded and the result declared. Since her interview marks could not be verified from the records, it directed that she be given the average interview marks of the same selection and that her result be declared within three months — without any right to appointment.
An advertisement dated 11 January 2005 invited applications for Group C and D posts, including 40 posts of Junior Clerk/Typist. The petitioner, a commerce graduate with a computer certificate, took the typing test on 4 August 2005 and was called for interview on 29 October 2005; a newspaper notice of 25 October 2005 listed her roll number at serial 3, though the university said it was not a merit list. No final result was declared. About 21 candidates were permitted to join, and the petitioner said 19 posts remained unfilled.
Before the High Court, the university said the selection followed the U.P. Direct Recruitment Rules for Group C posts, that the petitioner’s aggregate of 51.4 was below the last selected unreserved candidate’s 57.02, and that old records were no longer available. At the hearing the petitioner narrowed her case to a single prayer: a direction to declare the final result, not appointment. The original records produced in sealed cover contained no final select list.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a public recruiting body leave a candidate’s result undeclared for two decades because its records are incomplete — and how should a court remedy that when interview marks cannot be verified?
How the Court balanced fairness and practicality
The Court held that being called for interview does not place a candidate in the select list and gives no right to selection. Equally, not filling all 40 posts is not itself unlawful. But once a recruitment process is underway, the authority must conclude it and declare the outcome; the university could not answer the grievance merely by asserting figures that were not backed by the original record. The age of the records matters, the Court said, but missing records alone cannot leave a candidate’s result undetermined for ever.
Re-running the entire recruitment after two decades was impractical. Drawing on the transparency principles in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 08 SC CK 0084, Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and PIO & Registrar v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar — which it noted support transparency but do not themselves prescribe averaging — the Court treated the award of average interview marks of the same selection as a corrective measure where actual marks cannot be ascertained, not as a right to appointment.
What the Court Actually Held
- An interview call creates no right to selection, and an employer need not fill every advertised post.
- But a recruiting authority that starts a selection must conclude it and declare the result; incomplete records cannot justify leaving a candidate’s result undetermined.
- Where interview marks cannot be ascertained from reliable records, the candidate is to be given the average interview marks of candidates in the same selection, computed objectively and recorded in writing.
- KGMU to examine the surviving records, compute her aggregate under the rules and declare her final result with a reasoned communication within three months; the direction does not require appointment, filling all 40 posts or disturbing existing appointments.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It affirms a basic duty of public employers under Articles 14 and 16: a recruitment process cannot be left hanging.
- It offers a practical remedy — average marks — where records have been lost over time.
- It shows the limits of relief: declaring a result is different from ordering appointment.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Job Aspirants
- If a recruitment result is never declared, you can seek a direction to declare it, even if appointment cannot be claimed.
- Keep copies of admit cards, test and interview call letters; they established the petitioner’s participation here.
For Counsel
- Narrowing the prayer to declaration of result, as here, can make relief achievable decades later.
- Insist on production of original records; figures in a counter-affidavit not backed by records may not be accepted as conclusive.
Key Takeaways
- A started selection must end with a declared result.
- Lost records do not excuse non-declaration.
- Average interview marks used as a corrective measure.
- No right to appointment flows from the order.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a recruiting body simply not declare a result?
The Allahabad High Court held that once a selection process is undertaken, the authority must conclude it and declare the result; leaving it undetermined is not acceptable.
What happens if interview records are lost?
The Court directed that the candidate be given the average interview marks of candidates in the same selection, calculated objectively, and her result declared.
Does this mean the candidate will be appointed?
No. The Court expressly limited relief to declaration of her result; it did not require appointment or disturb existing appointments.
Conclusion
Twenty-one years after her interview, the petitioner will at least learn her result. The judgment holds a public university to the minimum obligation of every recruiting body — finish what it starts — while refusing to turn delay into an automatic job.
Practical takeaway: Challenge non-declaration of results promptly, and frame relief realistically; courts can compel a decision even when they cannot compel an appointment.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com