Isabella Mariam

The Delhi High Court has set aside the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the Staff Selection Commission to offer appointments to candidates who failed to meet the essential qualification criteria for the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II under the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2019. The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul held that candidates who knowingly participate in a selection process cannot later contest the eligibility criteria. The Court recorded that “having participated in the selection process without protest, the respondents cannot now seek exemption from compliance with the prescribed qualifications.”

The Court further observed that the eligibility requirement, as clarified in the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2019 notification, “does not introduce a new eligibility criterion but merely elucidates the intent and rationale underlying the existing educational qualification requirement.” Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the SSC and quashed the Tribunal’s directive to offer appointments to the respondents.

Also Read: "Prosecution Failed to Prove Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Beyond Reasonable Doubt": Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case

The case arose from a notification issued by the SSC on 22 October 2019 for the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2019, which included recruitment to various Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ posts, including the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II (SIG-II). The CGLE notification specified that candidates must possess a “Bachelor’s Degree in any subject with Statistics as one of the subjects” and further clarified that candidates must have studied Statistics “as a subject in all the three years of the graduation course.”

The respondents, who were candidates in the examination, successfully cleared Tier-I, Tier-II, and Tier-III of the selection process but were rejected at the document verification stage in September 2021 for not having studied Statistics in all three years of graduation. Their qualifications showed that Statistics had been studied in one or two years or during postgraduate studies, but not consistently across all three years of graduation.

Aggrieved, the respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which in its order dated 22 February 2023 directed SSC to offer appointments, holding that the Recruitment Rules issued by the Registrar General, Ministry of Home Affairs, did not specify the three-year condition and that the CGLE notice could not impose stricter conditions than the statutory rules.

The SSC challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that the three-year requirement was integral to the role of SIG-II, which involves critical statistical responsibilities under the Registrar General of India. The petitioners contended that the CGLE notice was consistent with the Recruitment Rules and clarified the qualification needed in light of the job profile.

The respondents argued that the Recruitment Rules only required Statistics as one of the subjects during graduation and did not require it to be studied throughout all three years. They further submitted that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules and that they were entitled to relaxation of the criteria based on the original Recruitment Rules.

The Court examined whether the CGLE notice supplemented or contradicted the statutory Recruitment Rules. The Bench observed that “executive instructions may be issued to supplement the rules, provided they do not override or contradict them.” It was recorded that the CGLE notice “does not contravene the RRs but rather serves to clarify their intent and application, ensuring that candidates possess the necessary academic foundation for the role.”

Referring to the job profile of SIG-II, the Court recorded that the role requires engagement in large-scale data collection and statistical analysis under national surveys and the Census of India, necessitating a sound knowledge of statistical methodology. The Court observed that “the study of statistics for only one year may not equip a candidate with the requisite depth of understanding in statistical concepts, methods, and tools, which are indispensable for effective data analysis and investigation.”

The Court found that the additional explanation in the CGLE notification did not create a new eligibility criterion but provided “clarity on the intent behind the original qualification.”

The Court further examined the conduct of the respondents, noting that they were aware of the qualification requirement but chose to participate fully in the recruitment process. Citing precedent, the Court recorded that “a candidate who voluntarily participates in a selection process without raising objections at the relevant stage cannot subsequently challenge the eligibility criteria upon being unsuccessful or disqualified.” The Bench relied on decisions including Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi and Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal to support this conclusion.

It was further stated that “in certain cases, a rigid reading of eligibility conditions would deprive meritorious candidates from consideration. A purposive interpretation must be adopted to ensure fairness in selection.” However, the Court clarified that this purposive reading must not undermine essential qualifications that are integral to job performance.

Also Read: Gujarat High Court : “Serious Issue Relating to Tribunal’s Functioning”; Directs Reports on “Limited Court Hours” and “Lack of Virtual Hearing Facilities”

The Court also rejected the respondents’ argument that the SSC lacked authority to supplement the Recruitment Rules through the CGLE notice. It recorded that “the RRs, read with the CGLE Notice, form a cohesive framework, ensuring that only those candidates possessing the requisite depth of knowledge in Statistics are selected for the post of SIG-II.”

The Court allowed the writ petition and recorded, “the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.” It concluded the proceedings by stating, “the present writ petition is allowed, no orders as to costs.”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vijay Joshi, Mr. Shubham Chaturvedi

For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Kaushik, Mr. Himanshu Sharma

Case Title: Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Ruby & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:1677
Case Number: W.P.(C) 11322/2023
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Ajay Digpaul

[Read/Download order]