UPSC Rejection For Lack Of Prescribed Court-Related Experience Upheld By Delhi High Court

A bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan heard a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order of 23.07.2025 which had dismissed the petitioner’s Original Application and upheld the Union Public Service Commission’s rejection of his candidature for the post of Prosecutor in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision, holding that eligibility must be assessed strictly as on the prescribed cut-off date and that the recruiting agency’s conclusion that the petitioner lacked the requisite experience was neither arbitrary nor perverse. The Court reiterated that judicial review in recruitment matters was limited to examining legality of the decision-making process and not the merits of the employer’s evaluation, absent mala fides or manifest illegality. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is, however, a settled principle that the sanctity of the cut-off date prescribed in a recruitment process has to be strictly maintained. 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. The recruiting agency was, therefore, justified in confining its consideration to the eligibility claimed and substantiated as on the closing date of applications." The judgment also relied on the principle from Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan that "when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained."

Background

The petitioner, Anant Kumar Rao, applied pursuant to UPSC Advertisement No. 18/2022 for one of twelve Prosecutor posts in SFIO. The advertisement required, inter alia, for five-year integrated law graduates "Two years’ experience in handling litigation & court matters/administration of Law in a Government organization," with Notes I and II permitting relaxation of qualifications or experience at UPSC’s discretion for reasons to be recorded in writing. The petitioner’s Online Recruitment Application (ORA) claimed employment with Willard Advisory Pvt. Ltd. from 01.03.2020 to 13.10.2022 and described duties largely involving drafting and negotiating commercial contracts, corporate compliance and related advisory work. He later produced additional certificates after the cut-off date and relied on his Scheduled Tribe status to seek relaxation under the advertisement notes.

On scrutiny, UPSC rejected the candidature inter alia on the ground that the petitioner did not have two years’ experience in handling litigation or court matters in a government organisation as on the cut-off date; certain earlier stints were not claimed in the ORA, some claimed periods lacked admissible certificates as on the cut-off date, and some service periods post-dated the closing date. The petitioner filed an Original Application before CAT; the Tribunal allowed him provisionally to participate in selection subject to the outcome and kept his result in a sealed cover, but ultimately dismissed the OA, upholding the rejection.

In the High Court, counsel for the petitioner emphasised the subsequent certificates, argued that Willard Advisory experience satisfied the requirement and urged discretionary relaxation under the Notes for ST candidates. The Court noted the advertised duties for the Prosecutor post included "to assist filing of prosecutions/complaints in all the cases ... and pursue their progress" and that the petitioner did not claim, as part of the Willard Advisory engagement in his ORA, court appearances or engagement in court proceedings. Relying on settled precedents, the Court held that eligibility was to be assessed on the basis of disclosures made in the application as on the prescribed cut-off date and that permitting supplementation after that date would breach Articles 14 and 16 by creating inequality. The Court observed that Notes I and II conferred discretionary power on UPSC to relax qualifications but did not create an enforceable right to relaxation; no material established that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or that the statutory conditions for relaxation were attracted merely by the petitioner’s ST status.

The petition was dismissed and pending applications stood disposed of. The Court recorded that the Tribunal’s view was "plausible and consistent with settled principles governing judicial review in service matters" and found no ground to interfere.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15303/2025
Case Title: Anant Kumar Rao v. Union Public Service Commission and Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Kamini Lau, Ms. Jyoti Vashisht, Ms. Suniti Bhatt and Mr. Rudraksh Jain, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Mr. Vasu Agarwal and Mr. Lekh Raj Singh, Advocates for R-1 and R-2/UPSC; Mr. Shrey Sharawat, SPC with Mr. Arvind, GP and Ms. Ishita Misra, Advocate for R-3 and R-4.