New Delhi: Belonging to a backward community, by itself, cannot tilt the scales in favour of a candidate, the Supreme Court has underlined, holding that public employment cannot be dispensed on considerations of sympathy or social background.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said that “grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance” in matters of public employment if a fair and level playing field is to be ensured for all aspirants.
“Merely because one belongs to the backward community cannot be the decisive factor for tilting the scales,” the bench held in its judgment released on April 4.
The court’s observations came while allowing an appeal filed by the Delhi Police against orders of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court directing it to give a second opportunity to a candidate who had failed to appear for a crucial stage of the recruitment process. The case concerned a candidate who had cleared the initial stage of recruitment for the post of constable but did not appear for the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PE&MT), citing illness in January 2024.
Despite this, the CAT directed the Delhi Police to allow him to take the test with a subsequent batch -- a decision later upheld by the Delhi HC in September 2025.
{{/usCountry}}Despite this, the CAT directed the Delhi Police to allow him to take the test with a subsequent batch -- a decision later upheld by the Delhi HC in September 2025.
{{/usCountry}}The Supreme Court, however, found the approach untenable. Describing the case as a “classic example” of irresponsibility, the bench noted that the candidate had “frittered away a golden opportunity” by choosing not to appear on the scheduled date.
The court emphasised that recruitment processes, especially those involving large-scale public employment, must adhere strictly to notified conditions. The advertisement governing the recruitment had clearly stated that the schedule for the PE&MT was final and could not be altered under any circumstances. With nearly a lakh candidates participating, the respondent was the only one seeking rescheduling, the bench noted.
Even assuming that the candidate’s representations seeking deferment were received, the court held that the nature of his illness did not warrant any exceptional treatment. “Not showing up and expecting a second chance clearly demonstrates a lack of drive and initiative,” observed the bench, adding that at the very least, the candidate ought to have reported at the venue and sought accommodation.
A key plank of the respondent’s case was that he belonged to a backward community and deserved leniency and this argument found favour with the tribunal and the high court.
But the top court rejected this outright. Delivering a strong message on the limits of judicial discretion in service matters, it noted that the “boundaries for exercise of discretion are well carved out beyond which the adjudicatory fora ought not to trench.”
The ruling underscored the court’s consistent emphasis on maintaining fairness and uniformity in public recruitment processes. Public employment, the bench noted, is scarce and fiercely contested, often representing life-changing opportunities for young aspirants.
“When chances are rare, one needs to grab them with both hands,” remarked the court, stressing that relaxing norms for one candidate would undermine the integrity of the entire selection process.
Setting aside the orders of the CAT and the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court held that the candidate had no enforceable right to seek rescheduling of the test. It concluded that the failure of authorities to respond to his representations did not justify judicial intervention that effectively altered the recruitment process.
ENDS