The Delhi High Court held that SC/ST candidates cannot claim an automatic right to relax eligibility rules for selection as prosecutors in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. The Court said relaxation applies only when specific conditions are fully satisfied
The Delhi High Court ruled that individuals from the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) category do not possess an inherent right to request a relaxation of eligibility criteria for appointments as prosecutors with the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan, noted that while the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) holds discretionary power to relax eligibility criteria for SC/ST candidates, this does not create an enforceable right for these individuals.
Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the plea of a law graduate whose application was rejected and upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that dismissed the candidate’s request.
The Court explained that petitioner Anant Rao had work experience in drafting and vetting commercial contracts, but lacked court appearance experience.
Since the responsibilities of a prosecutor include assisting in prosecutions and filing complaints in court, the Court stated that,
“The experience requirement, therefore, bears a rational nexus with the functional responsibilities of the post.”
It concluded that the recruiting agency’s assessment that Rao’s experience did not meet the essential requirements was not irrational, arbitrary, or perverse.
In 2022, the UPSC announced openings for 20 prosecutors in the SFIO, requiring two years of work experience in litigation. Rao claimed to have two years and seven months of experience at a law firm.
However, UPSC noted that some of this work experience was unsupported by proof. After the application deadline, Rao submitted additional certificates detailing experience in different capacities.
Rao contended that, as a member of the ST category, his documents submitted after the cut-off date should be taken into account. The Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing the need to uphold the integrity of the cut-off date strictly.
The Court stated,
“Such a provision does not vest an enforceable right in any candidate to claim relaxation as a matter of course…The fact that the Petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category, by itself, does not mandate relaxation in the absence of satisfaction of the conditions stipulated therein,”
Furthermore, the Court noted that candidates cannot be permitted to enhance or supplement their eligibility after the application deadline.
It remarked,
“Permitting candidates to improve or supplement their eligibility after the cut-off date would introduce uncertainty and inequality into the selection process and would be contrary to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
Thus, the Court declined to provide any relief to the petitioner. Advocates Kamini Lau, Jyoti Vashisht, Suniti Bhatt, and Rudraksh Jain represented the candidate, while Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar Singh, Vasu Agarwal, and Lekh Raj Singh appeared for the UPSC.
Case Title: Anant Kumar Rao Vs Union Public Service Commission and Ors
Click Here to Read More Reports On SC/ST Act