Service Law — Recruitment Process — Select List — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment. The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that a candidate whose name appears in a select list does not acquire any indefeasible or vested right to appointment unless the governing rules specifically confer such entitlement. Recruitment by the State or its instrumentalities must conform to comparative merit and equality principles under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 13)

 APEX COURT HELD THAT 

Service Law — Recruitment Process — Select List — Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment.
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that a candidate whose name appears in a select list does not acquire any indefeasible or vested right to appointment unless the governing rules specifically confer such entitlement. Recruitment by the State or its instrumentalities must conform to comparative merit and equality principles under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 13)

Service Law — Recruitment — Non-disclosure of marks of all candidates — Whether vitiates selection process — Held, no, in absence of statutory or advertisement requirement.
The Court held that where neither the recruitment rules nor the recruitment advertisement required publication or disclosure of marks obtained by all candidates appearing in the written examination, non-disclosure of such marks could not by itself invalidate the recruitment process. The respondents failed to establish that they had qualified in the written examination and mere non-disclosure of marks was insufficient to infer arbitrariness. (Paras 14, 15)

Evidence — Adverse inference — Non-production/destruction of recruitment records — Whether presumption can be drawn that candidates had qualified — Held, no.
The Supreme Court held that mere non-production or destruction of recruitment records does not automatically justify drawing an adverse inference that unsuccessful candidates had cleared the examination. Since the recruitment process had been conducted through an independent agency and no rule prescribed the duration for preservation of records, the explanation offered for non-availability of records was accepted as bona fide. (Para 15)

Service Law — Recruitment — Burden to establish successful qualification — Candidate cannot rely merely on absence of declaration of failure.
The Court held that the respondents had not pleaded or proved that they had passed the written examination. Merely because the authorities had not specifically declared them unsuccessful, no legal inference could be drawn that they had qualified in the recruitment process. (Para 14)

Constitution of India — Article 14 — Recruitment process — Transparency in selection — Scope.
The Supreme Court observed that the State and its instrumentalities are obligated to ensure fairness and adherence to comparative merit while making appointments. However, absence of disclosure of cut-off marks or evaluation criteria does not automatically render the recruitment process unconstitutional where no such requirement exists under the governing rules or advertisement. (Paras 10, 13, 14)

Service Law — Relief beyond pleadings — Appointment cannot be granted where no such relief originally sought.
The Court noted that in the original writ petitions the respondents had merely sought disclosure of results and records relating to selected candidates and had not sought appointment to the post for themselves. Consequently, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing appointments to the respondents. (Para 16)

Service Law — Change in qualification criteria during intervening period — Effect on grant of relief.
The Supreme Court held that since the qualifications prescribed for the post of Plant Attendant had been revised in the year 2008, it was not feasible to direct appointment of the respondents at a later stage pursuant to litigation arising from the earlier recruitment process. (Paras 9, 16)

Administrative Law — Equitable compensation despite denial of appointment — Litigation pursued for prolonged period.
Though setting aside the directions for appointment, the Supreme Court, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and the fact that Respondent No.1 alone had continued to pursue litigation since 2008, directed payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to Respondent No.1 within two months. (Para 17)

Result — Appeals partly allowed — Directions for appointment set aside — Compensation awarded to one respondent.
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and High Court directing appointment of the respondents to the post of Plant Attendant, while directing payment of Rs.5 lakhs compensation to Respondent No.1. (Paras 17, 18, 19)

Revenue Records — Evidentiary value — Whether revenue entries confer title — Held, no — Revenue records serve only fiscal purpose and do not create or extinguish title. The Supreme Court reiterated that entries in Revenue Records, Jamabandi, Faisal Patti, Vasool Baqi, Pahanies and mutation entries are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes to facilitate collection of land revenue and do not constitute documents of title. Mutation entries neither create nor extinguish ownership rights and carry no presumptive value regarding title. Revenue records may, at best, raise a presumption regarding possession but cannot independently establish ownership in the absence of foundational title documents such as pattas or grants. (Paras 16, 16.1 to 16.4, 17)

 APEX COURT HELD THAT 

Land Law — Revenue Records — Evidentiary value — Whether revenue entries confer title — Held, no — Revenue records serve only fiscal purpose and do not create or extinguish title.
The Supreme Court reiterated that entries in Revenue Records, Jamabandi, Faisal Patti, Vasool Baqi, Pahanies and mutation entries are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes to facilitate collection of land revenue and do not constitute documents of title. Mutation entries neither create nor extinguish ownership rights and carry no presumptive value regarding title. Revenue records may, at best, raise a presumption regarding possession but cannot independently establish ownership in the absence of foundational title documents such as pattas or grants. (Paras 16, 16.1 to 16.4, 17)

Land Law — Forest Land — Claim for exclusion of land from proposed reserve forest — Failure to produce primary title document — Effect.
The Supreme Court upheld rejection of the claim seeking exclusion of Ac. 600.00 in Survey No. 81, Kalvalanagaram Village, from proposed reserve forest notification, holding that the claimants failed to produce the foundational title document, namely the patta allegedly granted in favour of their predecessors-in-interest. Mere reliance on revenue entries, unsupported by lawful orders of mutation or grant, was held insufficient to establish proprietary rights over the land. (Paras 8, 10, 15, 17, 18)

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Scope of judicial review — Writ Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title.
The Court held that proceedings under Article 226 are not the proper forum for adjudicating serious disputes relating to title and ownership of immovable property involving disputed questions of fact. Such matters require adjudication through a properly constituted civil suit before a competent civil court. The learned Single Judge exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review by effectively declaring title of the appellants in writ proceedings. (Paras 17, 19, 20)

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Writ of Certiorari — Limited grounds for interference.
The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari lies only on limited grounds, namely: (i) lack of jurisdiction, (ii) excess of jurisdiction, (iii) violation of principles of natural justice, and (iv) error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Single Judge improperly expanded the scope of judicial review by entering into adjudication of title and granting substantive declaratory relief. (Paras 19, 20)

Land Law — Revenue entries showing “Jungle”/forest land — Unsupported private entries — No sanctity attached.
The Court noted that the Pahanie records for Faslis 1346–1356 described Survey No. 81 as “Jungle” (forest land), while names of private individuals appeared in certain columns without any supporting patta, grant order, or lawful mutation proceedings. Such unauthorised or contradictory entries lacking foundational documentary support were held insufficient to establish private ownership rights against the Government. (Para 17)

Forest Law — Notification under repealed enactment — Whether invalid solely for citing wrong statute — Held, no.
Affirming the Division Bench, the Supreme Court held that a notification is not rendered invalid merely because it refers to a repealed enactment, provided the action is otherwise traceable to the corresponding provisions of the existing law and is not inconsistent therewith. The contention that the 1950 notification was ultra vires solely because it referred to Hyderabad Forest Act, 1326 Fasli instead of Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355 Fasli was rejected. (Paras 10, 13)

Land Law — Presumption from revenue records — Stray entries — No proof of ownership.
The Court reiterated that stray or isolated revenue entries recorded for a limited period cannot prevail over consistent records or establish title. Revenue entries unsupported by authentic foundational records may even be fabricated or manipulated and do not bind the Government in absence of proof of lawful title. (Paras 16.5, 16.6, 17)

Result — Civil Appeal dismissed — Judgment of Division Bench upheld.
The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish any legal claim or title over the subject land and upheld the Division Bench judgment reversing the learned Single Judge’s order. Consequently, the Civil Appeal was dismissed. (Paras 20, 21)

Arbitration — Non-signatory doctrine — Veritable party test — Application thereof. The Court reiterated that even non-signatories to an agreement containing an arbitration clause may invoke arbitration if they are veritable parties to the agreement. In the present case, the Collaborator’s technical expertise and experience were indispensable for the Contractor’s eligibility to participate in the bid process, and the DJU formed an inextricable component of the contract structure. Accordingly, the Collaborator was held entitled to invoke arbitration despite not being a direct signatory to the principal contract. (Paras 3, 4, 7, 11)

APEX COURT HELD THAT

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Non-signatory to arbitration agreement — Collaborator/Associate under bid contract — Whether entitled to invoke arbitration clause — Held, yes — Collaborator held to be a veritable and inextricable party to contract.
The Supreme Court held that where the bid conditions required collaboration for technical qualification and mandated execution of a Deed of Joint Undertaking (DJU) jointly by the Contractor and Collaborator for successful performance of the contract, the Collaborator became an inseparable and veritable party to the principal contract. The Court held that the arbitration clause contained in the contract between the Employer and Contractor was enforceable by the Collaborator also, particularly when the Employer itself had repeatedly invoked the Collaborator’s obligations under the DJU. (Paras 6, 7, 11)

Arbitration — Non-signatory doctrine — Veritable party test — Application thereof.
The Court reiterated that even non-signatories to an agreement containing an arbitration clause may invoke arbitration if they are veritable parties to the agreement. In the present case, the Collaborator’s technical expertise and experience were indispensable for the Contractor’s eligibility to participate in the bid process, and the DJU formed an inextricable component of the contract structure. Accordingly, the Collaborator was held entitled to invoke arbitration despite not being a direct signatory to the principal contract. (Paras 3, 4, 7, 11)

Contract Law — Deed of Joint Undertaking (DJU) — Joint and several liability — Effect.
The Supreme Court held that the DJU executed jointly by the Contractor and Collaborator imposed joint and several liability for due completion of the project. The Employer itself had invoked the DJU and demanded performance from the Collaborator after the Contractor entered liquidation. Such conduct reaffirmed the contractual status and obligations of the Collaborator under the principal contract. (Paras 4, 9, 10, 11)

Arbitration — Interpretation of notice under Section 21 — Mere request for consent to institutional arbitration — Not admission of absence of arbitration agreement.
The Court rejected the contention that the Collaborator’s request seeking consent for reference of disputes to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre amounted to admission that no arbitration agreement existed. The Court held that the request was only with respect to the arbitral forum and not a request for creation of an arbitration agreement, since the arbitration clause already existed in the underlying contract. (Para 9)

Contract Law — Tripartite agreement executed after contractor’s default — Whether superseded earlier contract — Held, no.
The Supreme Court held that the tripartite agreement executed among the Employer, Contractor and Collaborator after delays in project execution did not extinguish or supersede the earlier contractual arrangement. The agreement merely facilitated direct payment to the Collaborator and reaffirmed the Collaborator’s continuing obligations under the DJU and the principal contract. (Paras 8, 9)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — High Court’s refusal to appoint Arbitrator — Set aside.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the Section 11(6) petition on the ground of absence of privity of contract. In view of the contractual framework, DJU, subsequent tripartite agreement, and repeated invocation of obligations against the Collaborator, the Collaborator was entitled to invoke the arbitration clause. Accordingly, the impugned judgment was set aside and a sole Arbitrator was appointed. (Paras 11, 12)

Result — Appeal allowed — Sole Arbitrator appointed.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and appointed Justice (Retd.) Chakradhari Sharan Singh, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties, leaving all contentions open to be urged before the Arbitrator. (Paras 12 to 15)

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Service Law — Recruitment — Essential Educational ...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Service Law — Recruitment — Essential Educational ...: advocatemmmohan APEX COURT HELD THAT Service Law — Recruitment — Essential Educational Qualification — Relevant date for determining eligibi...

APEX COURT HELD THAT 

Service Law — Recruitment — Essential Educational Qualification — Relevant date for determining eligibility — Whether qualification can be acquired after last date of application but before examination/interview — Held, eligibility must exist on date of submission of application — Candidates not possessing LL.B. degree on last date of application held ineligible.
The Supreme Court held that a conjoint reading of the recruitment advertisement and the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 clearly established that the relevant date for determining eligibility, including educational qualification, is the date of submission of the application. The Court observed that the eligibility of candidates is assessed on the basis of particulars and documents furnished at the time of application and there is no provision permitting later supplementation of qualifications. Consequently, candidates who had not acquired the LL.B. degree as on the last date for submission of applications could not claim eligibility merely because they acquired the qualification before the preliminary examination. (Paras 17, 18, 25)

Service Law — Recruitment Rules — Deletion of proviso permitting final year candidates to apply — Effect — Legislative intent — Final year students held not eligible after deletion of proviso to Rule 12.
The Court noted that Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 earlier contained a proviso permitting candidates appearing in the final year examination to apply subject to production of proof of qualification later. However, the said proviso was deleted by notification dated 10.10.2002. The Court held that the deletion clearly reflected legislative intent that only candidates who had already acquired the prescribed qualification as on the relevant date were eligible to apply. (Paras 19, 20)

Interpretation of Recruitment Advertisement — Requirement that candidate must “possess” prescribed degree — Scope — Future acquisition of qualification excluded.
The Supreme Court held that the requirement in the advertisement that a candidate must “possess” a Degree in Law necessarily excludes candidates who are yet to acquire such qualification or who may acquire it at a future date. Applying the maxim “aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum” (what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted indirectly), the Court ruled that eligibility conditions expressly prescribed cannot be diluted by indirect interpretation. (Para 21)

Service Law — Recruitment Process — Clarificatory press note — Whether alteration of eligibility conditions mid-process — Held, press note merely clarified existing position under Rules and advertisement.
Rejecting the High Court’s view that the press notes dated 19.11.2024 and 29.11.2024 altered eligibility conditions during the recruitment process, the Supreme Court held that the press note dated 29.11.2024 was fully consistent with the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 and the recruitment advertisement. The press note merely clarified that eligibility had to be determined with reference to the last date of submission of applications. (Paras 22, 25)

Interpretation of Eligibility Conditions — Beneficial interpretation in favour of candidates — Applicability — Cannot override clear and unambiguous eligibility criteria.
The Supreme Court held that the principle that, where two interpretations are possible, the one favouring candidates should be adopted, has no application where the language of the recruitment advertisement is clear and unambiguous. Considerations such as enlarging the pool of candidates or promoting competition cannot override explicit eligibility requirements prescribed under statutory rules and advertisement conditions. (Para 23)

Service Law — Recruitment — Administrative certainty in selection process — Subsequent acquisition of qualification — Rejection thereof.
The Court observed that accepting the contention that candidates acquiring qualification at any stage prior to interview should be treated as eligible would create uncertainty in the recruitment process and impose unwarranted administrative burden upon the recruiting authority in continuously tracking acquisition of qualifications after submission of applications. (Para 24)

Result — Appeals allowed — Judgments of learned Single Judge and Division Bench directing issuance of admit cards to ineligible candidates set aside.
The Supreme Court set aside the common judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court affirming the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. (Paras 26, 27)

Limitation — Suit challenging long-standing sale deeds — Delay defeats claim — Limitation to be strictly enforced (Paras 11–14) Issue: Whether suit filed in 2025 challenging sale deeds of 1988 was barred by limitation. Facts: Sale deeds in favour of Sridevi and family were executed on 19.04.1988 and remained unquestioned during lifetime of alleged co-sharer M.C.Chandrasekaran, who died in 1995; plaintiffs pleaded that fraud and patta entries came to knowledge only in 2023. Held: Mere plea of subsequent knowledge could not revive stale claims where registered transactions and possession remained open and continuous for decades; suit instituted after nearly 40 years was ex facie barred by limitation and liable to dismissal under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (Paras 11–14)

MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Rejection of plaint — Illusory cause of action and barred claim — Plaint liable to be rejected (Paras 10–14)

Issue: Whether plaint in partition suit challenging 1988 sale deeds after nearly four decades disclosed a sustainable cause of action.
Facts: Plaintiffs claiming through late M.C.Chandrasekaran sought declaration that 1988 sale deeds executed in favour of actress Sridevi and her family members were null and void and also sought partition of 2.70 acres at Sholinganallur; defendants contended that plaintiffs were not Class-I heirs, that sale deeds stood unquestioned since 1988, and that plaintiffs falsely pleaded knowledge only in 2023 after patta mutation.
Held: Court found alleged cause of action to be illusory and vexatious, holding that plaintiffs had slept over alleged rights for nearly 40 years despite long-standing registered sale deeds and revenue records in defendants’ favour; plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Paras 10–14)

---

Limitation — Suit challenging long-standing sale deeds — Delay defeats claim — Limitation to be strictly enforced (Paras 11–14)

Issue: Whether suit filed in 2025 challenging sale deeds of 1988 was barred by limitation.
Facts: Sale deeds in favour of Sridevi and family were executed on 19.04.1988 and remained unquestioned during lifetime of alleged co-sharer M.C.Chandrasekaran, who died in 1995; plaintiffs pleaded that fraud and patta entries came to knowledge only in 2023.
Held: Mere plea of subsequent knowledge could not revive stale claims where registered transactions and possession remained open and continuous for decades; suit instituted after nearly 40 years was ex facie barred by limitation and liable to dismissal under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (Paras 11–14)

---

Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Scope of enquiry — Court need not entertain patently meritless litigation (Paras 13–14)

Issue: Whether Court must mechanically proceed to trial merely because plaint contains formal averments.
Facts: Trial Court dismissed application for rejection of plaint holding that only plaint averments could be examined and disputed questions required trial. Defendants relied upon prior litigation, revenue proceedings and admitted dates appearing from plaint itself to show suit was barred and frivolous.
Held: Though ordinarily only plaint averments are examined under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Court is not bound to proceed with manifestly vexatious, legally barred and meritless litigation; judicial time should not be wasted on frivolous claims. Trial Court order refusing rejection of plaint was set aside and plaint rejected. (Paras 13–14)

---

RATIO

While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is ordinarily confined to plaint averments; however, where the plaint itself discloses that the claim is manifestly vexatious, illusory and ex facie barred by limitation, the Court is not bound to drive parties to trial merely on formal pleadings. Long-settled registered transactions and accrued rights cannot be unsettled after decades by pleading belated knowledge or vague allegations of fraud.