Introduction:

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of tie-breaking criteria in recruitment processes, emphasizing the importance of age as a determining factor when candidates secure identical marks. The case involved petitioner Kalu Ram Saini, a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), who challenged the selection process for the post of Assistant Commandant (Executive) after obtaining the same marks as another candidate who was appointed.

Background:

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) conducted the Limited Competitive Examination 2019 for the position of Assistant Commandant (Executive) in the CISF. The petitioner, Kalu Ram Saini, participated in this examination and secured a total of 369 marks. He successfully cleared the Physical Endurance Test and the Medical Examination. Notably, the last recommended candidate, referred to as Respondent No.4, also achieved 369 marks and was selected for the post, while the petitioner was not.

The examination notification did not specify a method for resolving situations where candidates achieved identical scores. The petitioner contended that in such scenarios, either both candidates should be appointed or the selection should be based on the marks obtained in the interview/personality test. He further argued that age should be considered as a tie-breaking factor, highlighting that he was 33 years old, whereas Respondent No.4 was 28, giving the latter more opportunities for future attempts.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that in the absence of a predefined tie-breaking mechanism, age should serve as the determining factor. He referenced the decision in Amresh Shukla v. Directorate General, CISF & Anr. CASEMINE.COM, which supported the consideration of age in such circumstances. The counsel argued that since the petitioner was older, he should have been prioritized for selection.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The counsel representing the UPSC (Respondent No.3) explained that in cases where candidates secure identical marks, the UPSC typically compares the marks obtained in the written examination. If a tie persists, the marks from Paper-I are considered, and if still unresolved, seniority is determined based on age. In this instance, both the petitioner and Respondent No.4 had equal marks in Paper-I, leading the UPSC to evaluate their Paper-II scores. Respondent No.4 had higher marks in Paper II, resulting in his selection. The council also expressed disagreement with the Amresh Shukla judgment, asserting that the UPSC operates under its constitutional mandate and not as an agent of the CISF.

Court’s Judgment:

Upon reviewing the case, the Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that the examination notification lacked specific guidelines for resolving tie situations. The court referred to the Amresh Shukla case, which held that in the absence of a tie-breaking principle, age should be considered to determine seniority. The court emphasized that examination rules should be governed by the advertisement, the authority’s rules, or general legal principles.

The court concluded that the UPSC’s method of considering Paper-II marks was not appropriate in the absence of a predefined tie-breaking criterion. It upheld the principle that age should be the determining factor in such situations. Consequently, the court directed the UPSC and CISF to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Commandant (Executive) with retrospective seniority above Respondent No.4. The petitioner was also granted other consequential benefits, excluding pay or allowances for the period he had not served in the position.

Conclusion:

This judgment underscores the importance of establishing clear tie-breaking criteria in recruitment processes to ensure fairness and transparency. The Delhi High Court’s decision reinforces the principle that in the absence of specific guidelines, age should serve as the determining factor in resolving ties between candidates with identical scores.