Allahabad High Court Orders KGMU to Declare 2005 Recruitment Result Despite Missing Interview Records

A limited but concrete remedy

The Allahabad High Court has ordered King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, to determine and communicate the result of Ruchi Sinha’s candidature in a Junior Clerk and Typist recruitment that began in January 2005. Justice Irshad Ali directed the university to examine the records it still holds. If Sinha’s interview marks cannot be ascertained from reliable surviving material, KGMU must calculate average interview marks from verifiable records of candidates who took part in the same selection, explain the method in writing and use the resulting figure to determine her aggregate marks. The entire exercise must finish within three months after a certified copy of the judgment reaches the competent authority. The Court did not direct an appointment.

How the dispute arose

The university advertised 40 posts in January 2005. Sinha applied, took the typing test and was called for an interview scheduled for 29 October that year. Her roll number appeared third in a newspaper notice listing people invited for interview. She argued that this indicated a strong merit position and sought disclosure of the complete recruitment result. KGMU responded that the notice was only a list of interview invitees, not a ranked select list. The Court accepted that narrower point: a serial number in such a notice cannot establish third place in the final merit list. But the university’s answer did not explain why the final outcome of Sinha’s own candidature could remain unascertained and uncommunicated.

What the university said the rules required

KGMU relied on the Uttar Pradesh rules for direct recruitment to Group C posts, as amended in 2003. It said final merit required aggregation of marks from the prescribed stages, including an interview carrying 50 marks. The institution asserted that Sinha had 51.4 aggregate marks, while the last selected unreserved candidate had 57.02, and that 21 appointments had been made according to institutional need. It also said no further selection records could be located after the passage of two decades. The Court did not infer deliberate concealment solely because old files were missing. Equally, it would not treat figures in a counter-affidavit as conclusive without a reliable underlying record capable of showing how the evaluation was performed.

Why an average is conditional

The judgment establishes a sequence, not a blanket replacement of interview marks. KGMU must first look for Sinha’s actual marks in trustworthy surviving documents. If those marks can be verified, the university must use them. Only if they cannot be established may it calculate an average from relevant, verifiable interview records of participants in the same recruitment. The basis and arithmetic must be recorded. The Court rejected a fresh interview after so many years as impractical for the limited relief pursued. It also warned against changing other candidates’ scores or disturbing appointments already made. This narrow method aims to complete one candidate’s evaluation without reopening the entire selection.

Result is different from appointment

During the hearing, Sinha confined her claim to declaration of the result and did not press requests for an appointment or reservation of a post. That choice shaped the order. The judge expressly said the direction cannot be read as requiring KGMU to fill all 40 advertised posts, appoint Sinha or unsettle those already selected. Her final position must be assessed under the applicable recruitment rules after a supported aggregate score is calculated. She might succeed or fail on that calculation; the Court did not decide the outcome in advance. The public-law duty identified by the judgment is to bring an undertaken recruitment evaluation to a reasoned and transparent conclusion for a participating candidate.

The broader lesson

The case illustrates the difficulty of resolving a service dispute when a recruiting institution cannot produce records from an old process. The passage of time does not turn an unverified assertion of marks into proof, yet it also does not create a right to appointment for a candidate. The Court’s remedy works within those limits by requiring an audit of what remains, a documented fallback if an essential score is missing, and a reasoned communication of the result. Future recruitment bodies can avoid this predicament by preserving assessment records and informing every participant of the final outcome. The decision is confined to this case’s facts and the surviving evidence; it is not a general instruction to average missing interview marks in every recruitment.