Durgapur Steel Plant v. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury 2026 INSC 459 - Public Employment -Recruitment
Public Employment - Recruitment- The State or its instrumentalities, while filling vacancies, are obligated to adhere to the principle of comparative merit of candidates based on their performance in the recruitment process, and no discrimination is permissible. A candidate whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right to appointment to the post in the absence of any specific rule entitling such appointment. [Context: The Supreme Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s direction, as affirmed by the Calcutta High Court, to appoint the respondents as Plant Attendant-cum-Junior Technician in Durgapur Steel Plant, holding that there was no material to show they had passed the written examination and that neither the rules nor the advertisement required disclosure or preservation of marks of all candidates.]
Case Info
Case name:Durgapur Steel Plant & Ors. v. Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Ors.
Neutral citation:2026 INSC 459
Coram:Justice Pamidighantam Sri NarasimhaJustice Alok Aradhe
Judgment date:7 May 2026 (NEW DELHI; MAY 7, 2026.)
Caselaws and citations referred:
- Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. v. State Information Commission & Anr., (2016) 3 SCC 417
- Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors., (2021) 4 SCC 631
- Union of India & Ors. v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146
- Poonam Rani v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 6 SCC 596
- Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh & Ors., (1993) 1 SCC 154
- Mohd. Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 582
- State of Manipur & Anr. v. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei & Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 331
Statutes / legal provisions referred (by implication):
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India (expressly mentioned: challenge on ground of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14).
- General principles of service/judicial precedents on:
- No indefeasible right to appointment merely by being in a select list.
- Comparative merit and non‑discrimination in public employment.
- Adverse inference from non‑production/destruction of records (evidence law principle, though section not cited).
Three‑sentence brief summary:The Supreme Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s direction, as affirmed by the Calcutta High Court, to appoint the respondents as Plant Attendant-cum-Junior Technician in Durgapur Steel Plant, holding that there was no material to show they had passed the written examination and that neither the rules nor the advertisement required disclosure or preservation of marks of all candidates. The Court rejected the drawing of an adverse inference from non‑production/destruction of records, accepted the employer’s explanation as bona fide, and emphasized that mere non‑showing of failure does not establish that a candidate has passed, nor does inclusion in a selection process create an indefeasible right to appointment. However, considering that respondent no. 1 had been litigating since 2008 and respondents 2 and 3 were no longer pursuing the matter, the Court directed payment of Rs. 5,00,000 to respondent no. 1 in full and final relief while allowing the appeals.