NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has emphasized that belonging to a backward community in itself cannot tip the scale in favor of a candidate, holding that public office cannot be dispensed with on grounds of sympathy or social background.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said that “grace, benevolence or mercy must be kept at a distance” in matters of public employment if we are to ensure a fair and equal playing field for all aspirants.
“One’s mere belonging to a backward community cannot be the deciding factor in tipping the scales,” the court said in its April 4 ruling.
The court’s observations came while allowing the appeal filed by the Delhi Police against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court directing it to give a second chance to a candidate who failed to appear at a crucial stage of the recruitment process. The case concerns a candidate who passed the initial recruitment stage for a police constable position but did not appear for the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PE&MT), due to illness in January 2024.
Despite this, the CAT directed the Delhi Police to allow him to take the test with subsequent payment – a decision that was later upheld by the Delhi High Commission in September 2025.
But the Supreme Court found this approach untenable. Describing the case as a “classic example” of irresponsibility, the court noted that the candidate “wasted a golden opportunity” by choosing not to show up on time.
The court stressed that recruitment operations, especially those involving large-scale public functions, must strictly adhere to the stated conditions. The recruitment advertisement has clearly stated that the PE&MT schedule is final and cannot be changed under any circumstances. The bench noted that with nearly a thousand candidates participating, the respondent was the only one seeking rescheduling.
Even assuming the candidate’s submissions requesting postponement were received, the court found that the nature of his illness did not require any exceptional treatment. “Not showing up and expecting a second chance clearly shows lack of motivation and initiative,” the bench observed, adding that at the very least, the candidate should have been present at the place and seeking accommodation.
One of the key elements of the defendant’s case was that he belonged to a backward community and deserved leniency, and this argument found favor with the court and the Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court rejected this outright. In a powerful message on the limits of judicial discretion in matters of service, she noted that “the limits of the exercise of discretion are well engraved and judicial forums should not exceed them.”
The ruling emphasized the court’s continued emphasis on maintaining fairness and uniformity in public employment processes. The Council noted that employment in the public sector is rare, highly competitive, and often represents life-changing opportunities for aspiring young people.
“When opportunities are scarce, one has to grab them with both hands,” the court observed, stressing that relaxing the criteria for a single candidate would undermine the integrity of the entire selection process.
Notwithstanding 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 examination. It concluded that the failure of the authorities to respond to his claims did not justify judicial intervention that effectively changed the recruitment process.
I finish
