Court’s Ruling on Writ of Mandamus

The court’s recent ruling on the entitlement to a writ of mandamus in a legal case has set an important precedent. The analysis by the court emphasized key legal principles and overturned the previous High Court judgments. This ruling has significant implications for similar cases in the future, highlighting the importance of judicial review and adherence to the law.


  • Nine vacancies went unfilled due to the unavailability of suitable candidates from the ex-servicemen category.
  • Five vacancies remained vacant due to the lack of suitable candidates from the ex-servicemen category.
  • Typographical errors were discovered in the answer keys after grievances raised in OAs were examined.
  • The OA was dismissed on 15 September 2017.
  • Candidates had to ensure all documents were complete at the commencement of basic training for a smooth issuance of offers of appointment.
  • Police verification and medical fitness were prerequisites for candidates who successfully completed the process.
  • Candidates were required to report to the recruitment cell in Delhi with original attested copies of documents to collect their offers of appointment.
  • Selected candidates were issued prescribed forms to expedite the recruitment process.
  • Candidates ousted from the selection zone were directed to report for further formalities within specific dates at New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
  • The Delhi High Court’s judgement was against the law established in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs State of Bihar.
  • Resignation from the Railway Protection Force by respondent Umesh Kumar was not a valid reason for the Delhi High Court to direct appointment through a writ of mandamus.
  • Umesh Kumar could have sought reinstatement in service as per Rule 275 of the RPF Rules, 1987.
  • Both respondents were not at fault in the selection process and were initially declared successful in the first result.
  • Grave prejudice was caused to the respondents due to their ousting after the revision of the result.
  • The respondents were given documents indicating their eligibility to join Delhi Police, creating a representation of their selection.
  • While there may be candidates with higher merit in the revised result, none of them had approached the Constitutional Court or High Court.
  • The recruitment process was halted after the initial results were challenged before the Tribunal
  • Irregularities in the answer key and mark allocation led to the necessity of revising the results.
  • A process of revision was followed transparently and applied uniformly to all candidates.
  • The final result following revision was declared on 22 February 2016, subject to further formalities.

Also Read: Analysis of High Courts’ Jurisdiction and Court Orders Under Article 142


  • Whether the respondents were entitled to a writ of mandamus.

Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election


  • Errors in the answer key were identified by the Expert Committee, leading to result revisions on 1 February 2016
  • Recruitment process was not yet concluded at the time of resignation
  • Respondent resigned without any justification and before receiving an offer of appointment
  • 228 candidates ranked above Umesh Kumar and 265 above Satyendra Singh in merit
  • Both respondents failed to meet the OBC category cut-off in the revised list
  • An Expert Committee was appointed to address issues post proceedings before the Tribunal
  • Litigation and delays in recruitment can be avoided with diligence from authorities
  • OAs filed by unsuccessful candidates also highlighted issues with the answer key preparation
  • Respondent Umesh Kumar resigned from the RPF before appointment
  • Mr. Khurshid’s submission regarding only two candidates not entitling them to a direction contrary to law as they had no vested right to appointment
  • In the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra), the model answer key and evaluation process of answer scripts by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission were found to be flawed.
  • In Punjab SEB vs. Malkiat Singh, the court ruled that inclusion in a selection list does not guarantee a vested right to appointment.
  • Even after re-evaluation of results, individuals in Rajesh Kumar (supra) who did not initially make the grade were not ousted from service as they had already been in service for nearly seven years.
  • The revised result was declared before offers of appointment were made to the respondents as the recruitment process was put on hold
  • Judgements of Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No 10143 of 2017 and No 13052 of 2018 were found to be not in accordance with the law
  • The High Court mandating the appellants to appoint the respondents was deemed to be manifestly in error and contrary to law

Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated


  • We allow the appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court dated 6 December 2018 and 19 December 2018 in the mentioned Writ Petitions.
  • Both Writ Petitions shall stand dismissed.
  • No costs shall be awarded.
  • Any pending applications shall stand dismissed.


Case Number: C.A. No.-003334-003334 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *