The Delhi High Court has clarified that declaring 'None Found Suitable' (NFS) in public recruitment without any predefined benchmark is arbitrary and violates the principle of fair procedure. However, it declined to grant appointment relief to a candidate whose claim arose from a flawed 2017 selection process, emphasizing that subsequent recruitment with clear criteria superseded the earlier irregularity.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the recruitment of Assistant Professors in the discipline of Management at Delhi Technological University (DTU). An advertisement dated 28.09.2017 invited applications for two posts of Assistant Professor reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category: one at the Delhi School of Management and another at the University School of Management and Entrepreneurship (East Delhi Campus). The appellant, Prince Kumar, an SC category candidate, applied for the post and successfully cleared the screening test.
Key Facts
- The advertisement dated 28.09.2017 did not specify any minimum qualifying marks or benchmark for suitability.
- Note 4 of the advertisement stated: "The University shall conduct a screening test for shortlisting of candidates. The shortlisted candidates will make a presentation before a committee in the concerned department and other invitees of DTU, prior to appearing before the Selection Committee."
- The appellant appeared in the screening test and was shortlisted.
- The Selection Committee held meetings on 04.12.2017, 05.12.2017, 06.12.2017, and 07.12.2017.
- Minutes dated 07.12.2017 recorded that one SC candidate, Mr. Yashdeep Singh, was selected with 59/100 marks for one post.
- For the second SC-reserved post, the Selection Committee recorded "None Found Suitable" (NFS) without citing any criteria or minimum score.
- The result was declared on 08.12.2017.
- The appellant filed representations on 30.06.2018 seeking reconsideration of his candidature for the NFS post, arguing that the absence of a benchmark rendered the NFS declaration arbitrary.
- The University responded on 06.05.2019, rejecting his claim and confirming Mr. Yashdeep Singh’s appointment.
Procedural History
- 30.06.2018: Appellant filed representation seeking reconsideration of NFS decision.
- 12.07.2018: Representation remained undecided.
- 20.06.2019: W.P.(C) 4055/2019 filed before Delhi High Court seeking direction to decide representation.
- 22.04.2019: Single Judge directed University to decide representation within two weeks.
- 06.05.2019: University rejected representation via letter.
- 20.06.2019: W.P.(C) 8606/2019 filed challenging the 06.05.2019 rejection and seeking appointment.
- 26.08.2019: Interim order passed restraining appointment to the post pending disposal.
- 14.05.2018: University issued a fresh advertisement for the same post, but did not carry forward the NFS vacancy.
- 14.03.2024: University issued another advertisement for five Assistant Professor posts reserved for SC candidates.
- 10.05.2025: Selection Committee for 14.03.2024 advertisement fixed benchmarks: 50 marks for SC candidates.
- 04.06.2025: Result declared; appellant scored 47.8 marks and was not selected.
- 20.02.2026: Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C) 8606/2019.
- 09.04.2026: Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.
The Parties' Positions
The appellant contended that the NFS declaration in 2017 was illegal due to absence of any benchmark, violating Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. He argued that his candidature should have been reconsidered for the unfilled post, especially since the University later fixed benchmarks in 2024.
The University argued that the 2017 selection process was complete, appointments were made, and the NFS declaration was a legitimate exercise of discretion. It further contended that the appellant had participated in the 2024 recruitment and failed to meet the newly fixed benchmark, thereby forfeiting any claim to the earlier vacancy.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Declaration that the NFS decision dated 07.12.2017 was illegal and arbitrary.
- Direction to appoint him to the unfilled SC-reserved post under the 2017 advertisement.
- Alternatively, to include his 2017 score in the 2024 selection process.
- Costs and any other relief deemed fit.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public recruitment body can lawfully declare "None Found Suitable" (NFS) for a reserved post in the absence of any prescribed benchmark or eligibility criteria in the advertisement or during the selection process, and whether such a declaration entitles a candidate to appointment even after subsequent recruitment processes have been completed.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the NFS declaration was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 16, as no standard was set to determine suitability. Relying on State of U.P. v. Subhash Chandra and S.S. Rathore v. Union of India, he contended that selection must be based on objective, transparent criteria. He emphasized that the absence of a benchmark rendered the entire process non-compliant with the principles of natural justice and equal opportunity. He further argued that the appellant’s right to be considered for the unfilled post was not extinguished merely because he later failed in a new recruitment.
For the Respondent
The University’s counsel countered that the 2017 selection was concluded with one appointment and one NFS declaration, and no legal obligation existed to carry forward the vacancy. She highlighted that the University had rectified the procedural flaw in 2024 by introducing clear benchmarks (50 for SC candidates), and the appellant had voluntarily participated in that process and failed to meet it. She relied on Union of India v. Ramesh Kumar to argue that courts cannot interfere with recruitment processes once completed, especially when subsequent lawful processes have superseded the earlier one.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the NFS declaration in the context of the 2017 advertisement and the Selection Committee’s proceedings. It noted that while the advertisement outlined the selection procedure, it contained no mention of a minimum qualifying score or any objective criterion to determine suitability. The Selection Committee, in its minutes, also failed to articulate any standard for rejecting all candidates as "unsuitable."
"In absence of any such stipulation regarding benchmark either in the advertisement dated 28.09.2017 or by the Selection Committee, declaring that None was Found Suitable (NFS) for the post in question does not appear to be justified."
The Court held that such a declaration, without any measurable standard, was arbitrary and lacked rational basis. It emphasized that selection committees must evaluate candidates on inter se merit and cannot resort to blanket rejections without criteria. The Court explicitly stated that the NFS declaration in 2017 was legally unsustainable.
However, the Court then turned to the question of remedy. It observed that the selection process under the 2017 advertisement was concluded on 08.12.2017, with one appointment made. The appellant filed his first petition over a year and a half later, and two subsequent recruitment processes had since occurred - one in 2018 and another in 2024. In the 2024 process, the University had corrected its earlier error by prescribing clear benchmarks: 50 for SC candidates. The appellant participated in this process and scored 47.8, falling below the threshold.
"Much water has already flown under the bridge since the selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.09.2017 was held and appointment was also made."
The Court concluded that while the NFS declaration was illegal, granting appointment based on the 2017 process would disrupt the legitimate recruitment conducted in 2024, which had already resulted in four appointments. The Court held that the appropriate remedy was not appointment, but a declaration that future selections must include clear benchmarks.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Delhi High Court held that while the NFS declaration in the 2017 selection process was arbitrary and illegal due to the absence of any benchmark, the appellant was not entitled to appointment. The Court found that subsequent recruitment under the 14.03.2024 advertisement, which included a fixed benchmark of 50 marks for SC candidates, had lawfully superseded the earlier process. The appellant, having scored 47.8 marks in the 2024 selection, failed to meet the validly prescribed standard. No relief was granted, and no costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Benchmark Requirement Is Mandatory in Public Recruitment
- Public sector recruitment advertisements must explicitly state minimum qualifying marks or objective criteria for suitability.
- Selection committees cannot rely on subjective or undefined standards to reject all candidates as "None Found Suitable."
- Failure to prescribe benchmarks renders the entire selection process vulnerable to judicial review.
Subsequent Lawful Processes Override Prior Irregularities
- A candidate cannot claim appointment based on an earlier flawed selection if a subsequent, lawful recruitment process has been completed.
- Participation and failure in a later process with clear criteria extinguishes claims arising from prior irregularities.
- Courts will not disturb completed appointments or disrupt ongoing service structures to remedy past procedural lapses.
NFS Must Be Justified, Not Used as a Default
- "None Found Suitable" should be an exceptional outcome, not a default mechanism.
- If no candidate meets a pre-stated benchmark, the vacancy may be carried forward or re-advertised - but not closed without justification.
- Institutions must document the rationale for NFS decisions, even if no benchmark exists - though the Court has now ruled that benchmarks must exist in the first place.
