Dharmratj Singh Tomar vs Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 2464 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dharmratj Singh Tomar vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2026

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

1 WP-11006-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 11006 of 2021

DHARMRAJ SINGH TOMAR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Harshavardhan Topre - Advocate for the respondents No.2 to

5/Bank.
RESERVED ON :- 10/02/2026
DELIVERED ON :- 13/03/2026

ORDER

The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:

"(1) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to quash / set aside the so-called social media result Annexure Pl

(2) That, the CBI / Judicial probe may please be directed to be done against the high handed corruption and for isolation of the rules / regulation / policy / guidlines and the settled legal proposition with regards to service Jurisprudence.

(3) That being the identical cause and due to the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

2 WP-11006-2021 financial distress the petitioners may kindly be granted the

exemption in the court fee with the permission to file the joint petition, for this purpose a seperate ad-interim is being filled.

(4) That, any other relief(s) with cost of this litigation, this Hon'ble court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be issued in favor of the

petitioners in the ends of justice."

FACTS

Short facts of the case are that the petitioners are the Ex-servicemen within the meaning of the policy promulgated by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension (Department of Personnel & Training) vide Office Memorandum No.36034/1/2006-Estt. (Res.), dated 10.10.2012, as amended from time to time, lastly on 13.02.2020. By virtue of their status, the petitioners were entitled to reservation and other benefits in public employment as per the prevailing rules and guidelines issued by the competent authorities. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence (Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare), vide letter No.28(75)/2020-D(Res.-1), dated 13.05.2021, had clarified the eligibility of Ex-servicemen for recruitment and appointment in security services in Public Sector Enterprises as well as Public Sector Banks. In furtherance of the said policy, Respondent No.2 issued letters bearing No.HR/RC/2387, dated 13.01.2020 and No.HR/RC/2864, dated 12.03.2020

inviting applications for recruitment of Ex-servicemen against permanent

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

3 WP-11006-2021 vacancies of Bank Guards at its branches. Being fully eligible and fulfilling

all prescribed criteria, the petitioners had applied for the said posts within the stipulated time. Thereafter, vide letter dated 17.11.2020 bearing Ref. No.AO/GWL/HR/919, the petitioners were called for the process of Subordinate Recruitment for the post of Bank Guards. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.3 conducted the Physical Fitness Test and other requisite procedures. The petitioners had duly appeared on the prescribed date, time and venue and successfully qualified the Physical Fitness Test with merit marks. Despite having qualified in the Physical Fitness Test and fulfilling all eligibility requirements, the names of the petitioners were not reflected in the final selection list. No individual communication, rejection letter, or reasoned order was ever issued to the petitioners explaining the grounds for their exclusion. Subsequently, the alleged result (Annexure P/1) was declared through social media platforms without any official notification, authentication, signature of the competent authority, or proper publication in accordance with established procedure. The manner in which the result was declared was arbitrary, non-transparent and contrary to settled principles governing public recruitment and service jurisprudence. The exclusion of the petitioners' names, despite securing sufficient marks and meeting all criteria, was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners had submitted detailed representations and legal notices to the Respondents, vide Annexures P/5 and P/6, pointing out the irregularities in the selection process and seeking

appropriate redressal.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

4 WP-11006-2021

The petitioners, in bona fide pursuit of redressal, also approached the District Sainik Board and submitted a detailed memorandum before the District Magistrate, Gwalior (M.P.), seeking appropriate intervention in the matter. However, despite such representations, no response was received and no corrective or remedial action was taken by the respondents. The petitioners, who are economically weak Ex-servicemen, are aggrieved by an identical and common cause of action arising from the arbitrary, illegal and non-transparent acts of the Respondents. In the absence of any efficacious or alternative statutory remedy, and owing to the complete inaction on the part of the Respondents in addressing their legitimate grievances, the petitioners have been left with no other option but to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate relief as indicated above.

ARGUMENTS

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire action of the Respondents in conducting the recruitment process for the post of Bank Guards is arbitrary, illegal, non-transparent and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioners, being duly recognized Ex-servicemen under the applicable Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India and subsequent amendments, were fully eligible and entitled to be considered for appointment against the vacancies notified exclusively for Ex-servicemen. The Respondents, having invited applications and permitted the Petitioners to participate in the recruitment process, were

under a constitutional and statutory obligation to ensure fairness,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

5 WP-11006-2021 transparency and adherence to declared criteria.

It was further submitted that the selection process cannot be said to have attained finality unless and until the result was officially declared in a legally recognized manner, duly authenticated by the competent authority and issued through proper channel. In the present case, the alleged result (Annexure P/1) was merely circulated on a social media platform without signature, seal or authorization of the competent authority. Such a mode of publication is unknown to service jurisprudence and does not satisfy the legal requirement of a valid declaration of result. In absence of an authenticated and officially notified result, the selection process remains incomplete in the eyes of law. Consequently, the so-called result is liable to be treated as non est.

It was further submitted that the petitioners successfully cleared the Physical Fitness Test and secured excellent and qualifying marks. Having been declared fit and having fulfilled all eligibility conditions, the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that their candidature would be considered strictly on merit and in accordance with the declared norms. However, despite qualifying the prescribed stages, the petitioners' names were omitted from the final list without any communication, rejection order or disclosure of reasons. Such unexplained exclusion of meritorious candidates amounts to manifest arbitrariness and violates the settled principles governing public employment.

It was further submitted that no transparency was maintained with

respect to the final selection criteria, cut-off marks, comparative merit list or

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

6 WP-11006-2021 weightage, if any, granted under various categories. In absence of disclosure

of objective standards, the selection process becomes opaque and susceptible to manipulation. Public employment must not only be fair, but must also appear to be fair, but the Respondents have failed to satisfy this fundamental requirement.

It was further submitted that when the petitioners sought access to the video recording of the recruitment process in order to verify the fairness of evaluation, Respondent Authorities failed and hesitated to provide the same. Such reluctance to disclose relevant records give rise to a reasonable apprehension regarding the integrity of the process and warrants an independent enquiry or investigation. Transparency in recruitment is a necessary facet of Article 14, and denial of access to relevant material is contrary to the principles of natural justice.

It was also submitted that the upper age limit prescribed for the post was 45 years. In several recruitment processes, merit marks constitute the primary basis of selection and, in case of parity, preference is often extended to candidates in the higher age group in recognition of their diminishing employment opportunities. The petitioners, having secured excellent marks and being within the permissible age limit, could not have been arbitrarily rejected without application of a rational and disclosed policy.

Learned counsel further submitted that the recruitment notification dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure P/4 colly) specifically contemplated priority to candidates possessing decorations, medals, commendations or gallantry

awards. It also provided preference to personnel from "fighting arms" such

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

7 WP-11006-2021 as Infantry Division as well as candidates from tri-services categories.

However, no transparent mechanism or guideline had been disclosed indicating how such priority was applied. The alleged prioritization appears to have been exercised arbitrarily without any objective yardstick, thereby vitiated the process.

It was further submitted that the petitioners are Ex-servicemen, who have rendered dedicated service to the nation and are now responsible for the welfare of their families. Several of them are facing financial hardship and service-related ailments. The purpose behind reservation and preference to Ex-servicemen is to ensure their rehabilitation and dignified resettlement in civil life. The arbitrary denial of appointment to eligible and meritorious Ex- servicemen defeats the beneficial intent underlying the policy.

Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anmol Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2021) 5 SCC 424, wherein it was categorically observed that selection to public employment must be strictly on the basis of merit and the appointment of candidates with lesser merit while ignoring those with higher marks is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the present case, where meritorious Ex- servicemen have been excluded without any lawful justification.

It was further submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that rights flowing from statutory provisions and constitutional guarantees are not matters of grace or bounty but enforceable legal rights. Where State

authorities act in violation of prescribed rules or adopt arbitrary procedures,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

8 WP-11006-2021 such action is unconstitutional and u/tra vires. Undue delay, non-disclosure

of reasons, and arbitrary exclusion offend Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

It was also submitted that when a statute or policy confers public power and prescribes the manner of its exercise, the authority must act strictly in accordance with that manner alone. Deviation from the prescribed mode renders the action invalid. In Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew reported in AIR 1980 SC 1230, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that excessive reliance on technical or ritualistic formalities at the cost of substantive justice causes hardship and defeats the very purpose of law, reiterating that law exists for the benefit of people and not vice versa. The conduct of the Respondents in the present case reflects precisely such mechanical and unjust approach.

In view of the cumulative irregularities, including unauthorized publication of the result, absence of authenticated declaration, non-disclosure of selection criteria, denial of reasons, refusal to provide relevant records, arbitrary application of priority categories, and exclusion of meritorious Ex- servicemen, the entire recruitment process stands vitiated, thus, the action/inaction of the Respondents are patently illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Petitioners prayed that appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to quash the impugned result, direct a fair and transparent reconsideration of the petitioners' candidature strictly on merit

and in accordance with law.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

9 WP-11006-2021

Per contra, \earned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5 relying upon Document No.9194 of 2024 filed on 02.12.2024, opposed the petition and prayed for its dismissal submitting that the recruitment process was initiated only after due administrative sanction was granted by the competent authority. Vide letter dated 27.11.2019, the Chief General Manager (H.R.), Corporate Centre Mumbai, advised the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhopal, to commence the process of recruitment of Bank Guards in the concerned Circle strictly in accordance with the extant guidelines. The said communication was issued pursuant to letter No.HR/IR/SKJ/873, dated 20.07.2019, whereby approval was accorded for recruitment of a total of 223 Bank Guards across the Circle. Out of these, 123 posts were allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh, of which 10 posts under the EWS category remained vacant.

It was further submitted that upon receipt of the recruitment sanction, the HR Department of the Circle initiated correspondence with the Rajya Sainik Board(RSB), with copies endorsed to the Zila Sainik Kalyan Adhikari(ZSKA)/Zila Sainik Welfare Officer (ZSWO) of each district, requesting sponsorship of Ex-Servicemen candidates to the extent of twenty times the number of notified vacancies so as to ensure a broad-based and competitive selection process. The guidelines further provided that in case the RSB or ZSKA/ZSWO expressed inability to sponsor adequate candidates, similar requisition could be made to the Army Welfare Placement Organisation, subject to mandatory registration of such candidates

with the concerned ZSKA/ZSWO. It was clearly stipulated that even if the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

10 WP-11006-2021 number of sponsored candidates fell short of twenty times the vacancies, the

Circle would proceed with the available list while making every possible effort to obtain the maximum number of eligible candidates.

It was further submitted that the eligibility criteria were pre-defined, objective and uniformly applicable to all candidates. The upper age limit was prescribed as 45 years as on October of the calendar year in which recruitment sanction was accorded. The civil educational qualification required a pass in 8th standard or its equivalent, with the condition that the candidate must not have passed graduation. Only Ex-Servicemen who had completed a minimum of 15 years of colour service in the Army, Navy or Air Force and who had not taken premature retirement on medical or disciplinary grounds were eligible. The rank prescribed was Havildar or below in the Army or equivalent in the Navy/Air Force, excluding Honorary Naib Subedars or equivalent ranks. The minimum character grading required was "Good," and the medical category at the time of discharge had to be "AYE" or SHAPE-I. Further, candidates were required to belong to Fighting Arms and to be General Duty soldiers, excluding technical or service category personnel.

Learned counsel further submitted that upon receipt of the sponsored list of candidates, a duly constituted Screening Board, convened under the chairmanship of the Chief Security Officer of the Circle and comprising nominated members, scrutinized all applications to ensure strict compliance with each and every eligibility condition. Any candidate failing to satisfy

even a single eligibility criterion was not considered further. The list of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

11 WP-11006-2021 eligible candidates, after such scrutiny, was forwarded to the concerned

Zonal Office(s) for conduct of the selection process.

It was further submitted that the selection process was conducted strictly on the basis of objective marking, namely Physical and Drill Test (including Turn Out) and Character assessment, aggregating to a total of 75 marks. Passing in each component of the physical test was mandatory. The marking parameters were predetermined and uniformly applied to all candidates. In the event of two or more candidates securing identical marks, the guidelines expressly provided that the candidate younger in age would be placed higher in merit.

It was further submitted that in strict adherence to Clause 12 of the guidelines, the Physical and Drill Tests were conducted under the supervision of a duly constituted Selection Committee and in the presence of the Bank's Medical Officer. Only those candidates, who produced a valid medical fitness certificate from an authorized medical officer, were permitted to participate in the physical tests. Thereafter, in terms of Clause 13, the score sheets were duly authenticated by all members of the Selection Committee, including the observer, and transmitted in sealed cover for compilation at the Circle level. Upon completion of the selection process across Zonal Offices, the AGM (HR) compiled the results and prepared separate category-wise merit lists for each State in accordance with the applicable reservation policy and relevant judicial precedents.

Learned counsel further submitted that upon compilation of the results

for the State of Madhya Pradesh, it was observed that the candidates had

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

12 WP-11006-2021 performed exceptionally well, leading to high cut-off marks in certain

categories. The category-wise cut-off marks and the date of birth of the last selected candidates were determined strictly on the basis of total marks secured and, in cases of tie, by applying the age criterion, whereby the younger candidate was placed higher in merit. Only those candidates who secured marks equal to or above the cut-off in their respective categories and ranked higher in merit were selected.

It was further submitted that in terms of Clause 17 of the guidelines, the results of only the successful candidates were declared by the AGM (HR) and communicated to the Rajya Sainik Board, Bhopal on 07.06.2021, which in turn informed the concerned District Sainik Welfare Officers for communication to the selected candidates. The results were also published on the official website of SBI, Bhopal Circle on the same date, whereby 113 Ex-Servicemen were selected in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thus, the allegation that the results were declared merely on social media is wholly misconceived and factually incorrect.

It was further submitted that since the present petitioners did not find place in the final merit list, their names were not included in the list of successful candidates. However, for transparency and proper adjudication, the respondents have placed on record a tabular chart containing the particulars of all 22 petitioners, including their Army Number, father's name, date of birth, category, marks obtained, result and reason for non- selection.

It was further submitted that even those petitioners who secured 75

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

13 WP-11006-2021 marks were not selected in cases where other candidates in the same

category had also secured 75 marks but were younger in age and therefore ranked higher in merit in accordance with the guidelines. Similarly, those petitioners who secured less than 75 marks, though declared to have passed the physical test, could not be selected as the cut-off in their respective categories stood at 75 marks due to the superior performance of other candidates. The non-selection of the petitioner was thus the result of strict adherence to the merit-based criteria and tie-breaking provisions contained in the guidelines and does not suffer from any arbitrariness, illegality or mala fides.

It was further submitted that the challenge to the recruitment process in question has already been considered and rejected by the Kerala High Court vide judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.19520 of 2021 titled as Ajith Kumar V.V. (Removed) & Ors. vs. State Bank of India & Others., wherein the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent Bank was upheld.

It was further submitted that the State Bank of India, being a statutory authority, enjoys the liberty and administrative discretion to frame its own recruitment policies and guidelines, and the courts ordinarily do not interfere in such policy matters unless the same are shown to be manifestly arbitrary or violative of statutory provisions. In support of the said submission, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Lachit Chandra Bora vs. State Bank of India and Others, reported in (2009) 3 GLR 628, decided on 11.11.2008.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

14 WP-11006-2021 It was further contended that the burden of establishing mala fides lies

heavily upon the person who alleges the same. Allegations of mala fides are often easy to make but difficult to prove, and the seriousness of such allegations requires proof of a high degree of credibility. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar , reported in (2003) 4 SCC 579; State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222; Ajit Kumar Nag vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , reported in (2005) 7 SCC 764; and Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar, reported in (2005) 8 SCC

760.

It was further contended that it is a well-settled principle of law that candidates who have voluntarily participated in a selection process, including interview and other stages of recruitment, cannot subsequently challenge the same merely because they have been unsuccessful in the process. Such candidates cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate, and a writ petition filed by them challenging the selection process is not maintainable. In support of the said proposition, reliance was placed upon Madan Lal and Others vs. State of J&K and Others, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486; Anupal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 173; Sadananda Halo and Others vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 619; Mohd. Mustafa vs. Union of India, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 294; and D. Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 478.

It was also submitted that picking up a negligible or isolated few

instances cannot form the basis for striking down either the method of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

15 WP-11006-2021 selection or the selections ultimately made. In this regard, reliance was

placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasvinder Singh vs. State of J&K, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 132.

It was further contended that the scope and extent of judicial review in matters concerning the selection process are extremely limited. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the Selection Committee and cannot undertake a roving or microscopic inquiry into the factual aspects of the selection process. In support of the said proposition, reliance was placed upon Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan , reported in AIR 1990 SC 434; Secretary (Health) Department of Health & Family Welfare vs. Dr. Anita Puri, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 282; M.V. Thimmaiah vs. Union Public Service Commission, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 119; Om Prakash Poplai and Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 117; and Sadananda Halo and Others vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 619.

In view of the aforesaid sequence of events and compliance with the prescribed procedure at every stage as well as the judgments cited above, it was submitted that the entire recruitment process was conducted in a fair, transparent and lawful manner, and the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

By way of filing I.A. No. 3016 of 2022 on 27.04.2022, which is an

application seeking the calling of the entire record of the recruitment process

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

16 WP-11006-2021 and which has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2024,

learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents, in its return, had stated that as per the conditions of the advertisement, in case of candidates securing identical marks, preference would be given to the candidate who is younger in age. It was further stated that in the State of Madhya Pradesh, candidates belonging to the General Category had secured 100% marks, i.e., 75 out of 75 marks, due to which other candidates who had secured higher marks than the petitioners were appointed.

It was further submitted that in the entire return filed by the respondents, neither the final selection list nor the complete marks of all the candidates have been disclosed. It was contended that with a mala fide intention, the respondents had prepared only a list pertaining to the petitioners and has assigned marks to them according to its own whims and fancies. In this regard, it was pointed out that the marks of petitioner No.1, namely, Dharamraj Singh Tomar, and petitioner No.12, namely, Vimal Kumar Dubey, as provided by the respondents along with the return, have been shown as 72 and 70 respectively, whereas in the reply furnished under the Right to Information Act, annexed as Annexure A alongwith the said IA, the respondent has indicated that both the said petitioners had secured 75 marks. It was thus contended that the aforesaid act of the respondents clearly reflects malice and illegal intent, and in order to conceal the irregularities allegedly committed by them, the respondents had prepared a selective list of the petitioners and furnished incorrect marks before this Court. It is also

evident that several candidates of comparatively higher age have been

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

17 WP-11006-2021 selected in an arbitrary manner, while appointment has been denied to the

petitioners in an illegal fashion. By way of illustration, it was pointed out that one candidate, namely, Rajinder Singh, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, having his date of birth in the year 1979, has been selected, whereas as per the return filed by the respondents, the candidate selected in the Scheduled Caste category is stated to have the birth year of 1981. It was thus argued that the said discrepancy reflects illegality and mala fides on the part of the respondents, particularly when no satisfactory explanation has been offered as to why the final recruitment list and the complete marks list have not been placed on record.

It was further submitted that the illegality on the part of the respondent was also reflected from the fact that despite the filing of numerous applications under the Right to Information Act, copies of which are annexed as Annexure B along with the said IA, no reply has been furnished and neither the final selection list nor the marks list has been supplied. According to the petitioners, such conduct on the part of the respondents clearly demonstrates mala fide intent and lack of transparency in the recruitment process.

It was also submitted that the notification filed as Annexure P/3 reflects that the respondents had sought the names of 2460 ex-servicemen, whereas as per Annexure R/1 filed alongwith the reply of the respondents No.2 to 5 vide Document No.9194 of 2024, there were 223 vacancies in the Bhopal Circle. Out of these, only 113 posts have been filled by the

respondents, while the remaining posts are still lying vacant. It was

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

18 WP-11006-2021 contended that despite the availability of meritorious and eligible candidates,

including the petitioners, the respondents had failed to fill up the remaining vacancies without assigning any valid reason.

It was lastly submitted that the process of recruitment to public posts must be fair, transparent and free from any arbitrariness or suspicion. However, in the present case, the conduct of the respondents, including non- disclosure of the complete selection record, contradictory information regarding the marks obtained by the petitioners, and failure to provide the final merit list, clearly reflects mala fides and arbitrariness in the recruitment process.

In reply to aforesaid I.A. No. 3016 of 2022, an application seeking the calling of the entire record of the recruitment process, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5 relying upon Document No.8439 of 2023 filed on 18.10.2023 submitted that the averments made in the application are vague, misleading and devoid of any merit and, therefore, deserve to be denied in toto. It was vehemently denied that the respondents had, with any mala fide intent, prepared a list only of the petitioners and assigned marks to them according to its whims and fancies. The marks were awarded to the candidates strictly in accordance with the detailed criteria prescribed in the guidelines governing the recruitment process.

It was further submitted that during the Bank Guard recruitment exercise, the Bank had received hundreds of applications under the Right to Information Act seeking various information relating to the recruitment

process. Around ten of the petitioners had also submitted RTI applications

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

19 WP-11006-2021 and were provided with timely replies to the information sought by them.

However, during the course of furnishing replies to the RTI applicants, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) inadvertently provided incorrect particulars regarding the marks secured by two petitioners, namely, Shri Dharmraj Singh Tomar and Shri Vimal Kumar Dubey.

It was further submitted that upon realizing the said error, the CPIO immediately rectified the mistake and issued a corrected reply to Shri Vimal Kumar Dubey vide letter No. Prem/RTI/794/724 dated 22.10.2021 sent through India Post Speed Post bearing Dak No.EI318904557IN, mentioning that the earlier reply issued vide letter No. Prem/RTI/617 dated 30.08.2021 was incorrect.

It was further submitted that the petitioner, Shri Vimal Kumar Dubey, has deliberately concealed the said rectified reply (which is enclosed and marked as Annexure R/5 alongwith Document No.8439 of 2023) from this Court with an intent to mislead the Court.

It was further submitted that with respect to the RTI application submitted by the present petitioner/Shri Dharmraj Singh Tomar, due to a clerical error, incorrect information was furnished in the RTI reply and the same could not be realized and rectified at the relevant time. However, upon filing of the present application, the respondents noticed the said bona fide error and accordingly, issued a rectified reply (which is enclosed and marked as Annexure R/6 alongwith Document No.8439 of 2023) to the present petitioner vide letter No. Prem/RTI/338 dated 05.07.2022 sent through India Post Speed Post bearing Dak No. EI306757750IN. It was submitted that the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

20 WP-11006-2021 correct factual position with regard to the marks secured by both the

aforesaid petitioners has already been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Bank and the same is duly reflected in the rectified RTI replies.

It was further submitted that that even assuming, without admitting, that both the petitioners, namely, Shri Vimal Kumar Dubey and Shri Dharmraj Singh Tomar had secured 75 marks, the same would not alter the final outcome of the selection process. It was pointed out that the marks secured by the last selected candidate in the General Category were 75 and the date of birth of the said candidate was 06.07.1984, which makes the last selected candidate younger in age than the aforesaid petitioners. Therefore, in terms of Clause 7 of the applicable guidelines, which clearly provides that in case two or more candidates secure identical marks, the candidate younger in age shall be placed higher in merit, the petitioners would still not qualify for selection.

Learned counsel further submitted that the allegations made by the petitioners regarding the selection of candidates of higher age in an arbitrary manner are also vague, baseless and false. It was specifically denied that numerous candidates of higher age were selected arbitrarily. With regard to the allegation concerning the selection of one Shri Rajinder Singh, allegedly belonging to the Scheduled Caste category and stated to have been born in the year 1979, it was submitted that the name of the said person does not appear in the list of candidates who participated in the recruitment process under challenge. It was further pointed out that the petitioners have failed to

provide the Army number of the said alleged candidate, which constitutes the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

21 WP-11006-2021 conclusive identity of a candidate. In the absence of such particulars, no

further comments can be made with respect to the alleged selection of the said candidate.

It was further submitted that the allegations regarding non-furnishing of information under the Right to Information Act are also incorrect, as the applications filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 were duly dealt with by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. It was also stated that the final select list was duly forwarded to the Rajya Sainik Board and there was no mala fide intention on the part of the Bank in the conduct of the recruitment process.

Learned counsel further submitted that the contention raised by the petitioners regarding the number of vacancies is also misleading. It was pointed out that the Bhopal Circle comprises both the State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Chhattisgarh. As stated in the reply filed by the respondents, there were a total of 223 vacancies in the Bhopal Circle. Out of these, 123 posts of Bank Guards pertained to the State of Madhya Pradesh, out of which 10 posts remained vacant under the EWS category, whereas the remaining 100 posts of Bank Guards pertained to the State of Chhattisgarh. It was therefore specifically denied that 110 posts were lying vacant in relation to the recruitment process under challenge.

A reply on behalf of Respondent No. 6, namely, the Director, Sainik Welfare Department, Rajya Sainik Board, was filed vide Document No. 7248 of 2021. In the said reply, it was submitted at the outset that Respondent No.

6 has no active or direct role in the recruitment process in question and that

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

22 WP-11006-2021 the petitioners have not sought any specific relief against him. It was further

stated that the role of Respondent No. 6 was limited and purely administrative in nature.

It was further submitted that the respondent Bank had vacancies for the post of Bank Guards at the State level and, accordingly, vide its letter dated 13.01.2020, requested the Rajya Sainik Board, Bhopal, which functions as the central depository of data relating to ex-servicemen belonging to the State of Madhya Pradesh, to forward the names of at least 2640 ex- servicemen having a younger age profile who fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Bank. In response to the aforesaid communication dated 13.01.2020, Respondent No. 6 forwarded a list of suitable candidates who satisfied the minimum eligibility criteria as laid down by the Bank for appointment to the post of Bank Guards.

It was further submitted that subsequently, vide letter dated 12.03.2020, the Bank sought a revised list of names of at least 2460 ex- servicemen with a younger age profile who met the revised eligibility criteria, in the format enclosed with the said letter. A perusal of the aforesaid letter dated 12.03.2020 clearly indicates that the only modification made by the Bank pertained to the eligibility criteria, whereby candidates belonging to "Fighting Arms" as well as "Services" from the Army, Navy, or Air Force were made eligible to apply for the post of Bank Guard. In compliance with the revised criteria communicated by the Bank, Respondent No. 6, through the Rajya Sainik Board, Bhopal, forwarded a revised list of candidates on

30.06.2020 strictly in accordance with the eligibility requirements prescribed

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

23 WP-11006-2021 by the Bank.

It was further submitted that the entire recruitment process was initiated, designed, and conducted at the behest of the Bank. All terms, conditions, and eligibility criteria governing the recruitment were framed exclusively by the Bank. The role of Respondent No. 6 was confined only to forwarding the names of candidates who fell within the eligibility parameters prescribed by the Bank. Respondent No. 6 neither participated in nor exercised any control over the selection or recruitment process. Accordingly, he bears no active role or responsibility in the alleged irregularities, if any, pertaining to the recruitment process.

It was also submitted that for proper adjudication of the issues raised in the present petition, the reply on merits is required to be filed by the concerned respondents responsible for conducting the recruitment process.

A reply on behalf of Respondent No.7 has been filed vide Document/I.A. No. 12176/2021, wherein it was submitted that Respondent No. 6 has already filed its reply/return to the instant writ petition. It was further submitted that the submissions and averments made in the said reply filed by Respondent No.6 are relevant and applicable to the case of the respondent No.7 as well. Accordingly, the respondent No.7 has sought liberty from this Court to permit him to adopt the reply/return filed by Respondent No.6, for the purposes of the present proceedings.

By way of filing LA. No. 1508 of 2024 on 20.02.2024, which is an application for taking additional documents on record and which has been

allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2025, the counsel for the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

24 WP-11006-2021 petitioners submitted that the respondents had taken a plea that all the

candidates who appeared from the Gwalior Zone were meritorious and had attained 100 percent marks, due to which candidates of younger age were appointed while the candidates who were comparatively older were not appointed. It was further submitted that pursuant to a similar advertisement, appointments were also made in the State of Rajasthan wherein candidates belonging to different age groups, including candidates having birth year of 1976, were appointed. Therefore, it is beyond comprehension as to why a similar set of Rules has been applied differently with respect to the candidates of the Gwalior Zone. It was pointed out pertinently that while making appointments in the State of Rajasthan, the respondents have not adopted any criteria of preferring candidates of younger age, as candidates who were around 45 years of age were also shortlisted and appointed. It was further submitted that the maximum age of 45 years is itself one of the essential eligibility criteria, and therefore candidates who were at the maximum permissible age were also duly appointed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the pleadings, documents placed on record, this Court proceeds to examine the controversy in the backdrop of the settled principles governing recruitment to public employment and the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

At the outset, it is not in dispute that the recruitment process in

question was initiated pursuant to administrative sanction granted by the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

25 WP-11006-2021 competent authority of the respondent Bank for appointment to the post of

Bank Guards from amongst Ex-servicemen. The material placed before this Court indicates that the recruitment exercise was conducted in accordance with the guidelines framed by the respondent Bank and the eligibility conditions prescribed therein. The record further reflects that the respondent Bank sought the names of eligible candidates from the Rajya Sainik Board, which acts as a central repository of information relating to Ex-servicemen. The role of the said authority was confined merely to forwarding the names of candidates who satisfied the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed by the Bank. The actual process of screening, evaluation, and final selection was undertaken by the respondent Bank through its duly constituted committees.

From the documents placed on record, it further appears that upon receipt of the list of sponsored candidates, the applications were scrutinized by a Screening Board constituted by the respondent Bank so as to ensure that the candidates satisfied the prescribed eligibility conditions and only those candidates, who fulfilled all the requirements, were permitted to participate in the subsequent stages of the recruitment process. The guidelines governing the recruitment process further stipulated that the selection would be based upon the Physical and Drill Test, including assessment of turnout and character, carrying a total of 75 marks. It was also provided that passing each component of the physical test was mandatory and the final merit position would be determined on the basis of the total marks obtained by the candidates.

Significantly, the recruitment guidelines also incorporated a tie-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

26 WP-11006-2021 breaking provision which clearly stipulated that in the event of two or more

candidates securing identical marks, the candidate younger in age would be placed higher in the order of merit. The said provision formed part of the recruitment policy governing the entire selection process and was uniformly applicable to all candidates.

The principal grievance raised by the petitioner is that despite qualifying the Physical Fitness Test and allegedly securing high marks, their names did not appear in the final list of selected candidates. The petitioner has also contended that the result was allegedly circulated through social media platforms without proper authentication and the respondents failed to disclose the complete merit list of all candidates.

However, the respondents had categorically stated that the results were compiled by the competent authority at the Circle level and were thereafter communicated to the Rajya Sainik Board for onward dissemination to the concerned District Sainik Welfare Officers. The respondents had further stated that the results were also uploaded on the official website of the Bank. In the absence of any cogent material to demonstrate that the results were declared in an unauthorized manner, this Court is unable to accept the contention that the recruitment process stood vitiated merely because certain information have been circulated on social media platforms.

It is well-settled that merely qualifying in a particular stage of a recruitment process does not confer any indefeasible right upon a candidate to be appointed. The right of a candidate is limited only to fair consideration

in accordance with the rules governing the recruitment process. In this

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

27 WP-11006-2021 regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India,

reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47, has categorically held that even a candidate whose name appears in a select list does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment unless the recruitment rules specifically provide so.

The record placed before this Court further indicates that a large number of candidates participating in the recruitment process secured the maximum marks prescribed under the guidelines. In such circumstances, the tie-breaking rule contained in the guidelines had to be applied. As per the said rule, preference was to be given to the candidate who was younger in age. The respondents had explained that several candidates secured identical marks and the younger candidates were placed higher in the merit list strictly in accordance with the said guideline. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the said criterion was either arbitrary or applied selectively.

The petitioners have also sought to draw a comparison with the recruitment undertaken in the State of Rajasthan and have contended that candidates of higher age were appointed there, whereas in the present recruitment process preference was accorded to younger candidates in cases of equal marks. In the considered opinion of this Court, such comparison is misconceived. The recruitment process in the present case was governed by the specific guidelines framed by the respondent Bank, which expressly incorporated a tie-breaking provision stipulating that in the event of two or more candidates securing identical marks, the candidate younger in age shall be placed higher in the order of merit. The said provision formed an integral

part of the recruitment policy applicable to the selection process in question.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

28 WP-11006-2021 Significantly, the validity of the said tie-breaking rule has not been

specifically challenged by the petitioners in the present proceedings. Once the recruitment guidelines expressly provide for a particular method of resolving a tie in marks, and the candidates have participated in the process with full knowledge of the said condition, the same cannot be assailed merely because its application has resulted in the non-selection of certain candidates.

It is equally well settled that an employer, particularly a statutory authority such as the respondent Bank, possesses the administrative discretion and liberty to frame its own recruitment policies and criteria, including the method of preparation of the merit list and the mechanism for resolving a tie in marks, provided such criteria are not arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of statutory provisions. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the tie-breaking rule based on age suffers from any such infirmity. The mere fact that in another recruitment process conducted in a different State or Circle, appointments may have been made under a different factual scenario or merit position does not render the policy applied in the present selection process illegal. Recruitment processes conducted in different jurisdictions may yield different outcomes depending upon the comparative performance of candidates and the applicable merit position, and such variation cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for judicial interference.

Therefore, in the absence of any challenge to the validity of the

recruitment guidelines themselves and in the absence of any material

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

29 WP-11006-2021 demonstrating selective or arbitrary application of the tie-breaking rule, this

Court finds no illegality in the action of the respondents in placing younger candidates higher in the order of merit where identical marks were secured.

It is equally well settled that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the Selection Committee. It cannot undertake a re-evaluation of the comparative merit of candidates. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan (supra), the Apex Court held that the courts should be slow in interfering with the assessment made by expert bodies and should not substitute their own opinion for that of the Selection Committee.

Similarly, in M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission, reported in (supra), it was reiterated that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to selection is extremely limited and the Court cannot re- assess the comparative merits of candidates.

Another settled principle which applies squarely to the facts of the present case is that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of the rules governing the same cannot subsequently challenge the process merely because he has not been selected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra), has held that a candidate who takes part in the selection process cannot later turn around and question the process after finding that he has been unsuccessful.

The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex

Court in Anmol Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), to contend that

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

30 WP-11006-2021 selection to public employment must be strictly on the basis of merit and

appointment of candidates with lesser merit while ignoring those with higher marks is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the Apex Court found that candidates with higher marks were arbitrarily ignored while candidates with lower merit were appointed in violation of the prescribed criteria. In the present case, however, the respondents had demonstrated that the petitioner was not selected because several candidates had secured identical marks and, in accordance with the tie-breaking provision contained in the recruitment guidelines, the younger candidates were placed higher in merit. Thus, the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment does not advance the case of the petitioners.

The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment in Charles K. Skaria vs. C. Mathew (supra), to contend that excessive reliance on technicalities should not defeat substantive justice. The ratio of the said judgment, however, does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the instant matter, the respondents had acted strictly in accordance with the recruitment guidelines and the prescribed criteria governing the selection process. The application of the tie-breaking rule based on age cannot be characterized as a mere technicality but forms an integral part of the recruitment policy.

The allegations raised by the petitioner regarding discrepancies in the marks furnished under the Right to Information Act have also been explained

by the respondents. The respondents had placed on record that the incorrect

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

31 WP-11006-2021 information was furnished due to a clerical error on the part of the Central

Public Information Officer and the same was subsequently rectified by issuing corrected replies. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an inadvertent clerical error cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that the entire recruitment process was vitiated by mala fides.

The petitioner had further alleged that certain candidates of higher age were selected in an arbitrary manner. However, the petitioner had failed to place any reliable material on record to substantiate the said allegation. No complete particulars of such candidates have been furnished and the identity of the alleged candidates has not been established. In the absence of such particulars, the allegation remains vague and incapable of judicial scrutiny.

It is also a settled principle that allegations of mala fides must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Mere suspicion or conjecture cannot form the basis for a finding of mala fides. The Apex Court in Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar (supra), has held that allegations of mala fides are easy to make but difficult to establish and must be supported by credible evidence.

In the present case, apart from making general allegations of arbitrariness and lack of transparency, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any concrete illegality in the recruitment process. The material placed on record indicates that the selection was conducted in accordance with the prescribed guidelines and the petitioner was not selected only because he did not rank sufficiently high in the final merit list after

application of the tie-breaking criteria.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5274

32 WP-11006-2021

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish that the recruitment process in question was vitiated by any arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The allegations raised in the present writ petition are largely based on conjectures and unsubstantiated assertions and do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.

All pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE