Allahabad High Court Directs KGMU to Calculate Average Interview Marks After Records Go Missing
The Allahabad High Court has directed King George's Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow, to calculate average interview marks from available records if a candidate's original interview marks cannot be reliably established. The Court has further directed the University to complete the evaluation process and declare the petitioner's result within three months, reinforcing the principles of fairness, transparency and accountability in public recruitment.
Background of the Case
The ruling was delivered by Justice Irshad Ali in Ruchi Sinha v. U.P. King George Dental Science University and Others, Writ-A No. 7470 of 2005, on October 28, 2026. The dispute arose from a recruitment advertisement dated January 11, 2005, inviting applications for various Group C and Group D posts, including 40 vacancies for Junior Clerk/Typist at the University.
The petitioner participated in the recruitment process, appeared for the typing test and was subsequently called for an interview scheduled for October 29, 2005. Her roll number appeared at serial number three in a notification published in the newspaper Dainik Jagran on October 25, 2005. However, the petitioner alleged that the complete final selection result was never declared, leaving her candidature unresolved.
She approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to declare the complete recruitment result. During the proceedings, she confined her claim to the declaration of the result and did not press her other prayers seeking appointment or reservation of a post.
University's Stand Before the Court
KGMU contended that the recruitment process had been conducted under the Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group C Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002, as amended in 2003.
The University argued that the notification dated October 25, 2005, was merely a list of candidates called for interview and not a final merit list. It further submitted that the petitioner had secured 51.4 marks out of 100, whereas the last selected candidate in the unreserved category had obtained 57.02 marks.
According to the University, 21 appointments had been made based on its administrative requirements. It also submitted that, owing to the considerable passage of time since the 2005 recruitment, several original records were no longer available and only the surviving documents could be produced before the Court.
High Court's Observations
The High Court acknowledged that appearing at serial number three in a list of candidates called for interview did not establish that the petitioner occupied the third position in the final merit list. However, the Court held that this distinction did not absolve the University of its responsibility to bring the recruitment process to a lawful conclusion.
The Court emphasised that declaration of the final result is an essential component of transparency in public recruitment. Candidates who participate in the prescribed selection stages are entitled to know the outcome of their candidature through a process consistent with the applicable recruitment rules.
Importantly, the Court observed that the University's assertion regarding the petitioner's marks could not be treated as conclusively established merely on the basis of statements in its counter-affidavit. The original records produced before the Court did not contain a final selection list or contemporaneous documentary material sufficiently substantiating the claimed final outcome.
The Court further clarified that although the recruitment process dated back more than two decades, the non-availability of certain records could not justify leaving the petitioner's result indefinitely unresolved.
Average Interview Marks as a Corrective Measure
While examining the available records, the Court considered the possibility that the petitioner's original interview marks might no longer be ascertainable. It held that, in such circumstances, an arbitrary or speculative assessment would not be appropriate.
Instead, the Court directed the University to calculate average interview marks objectively using the relevant and verifiable interview records of candidates who participated in the same selection process for the post of Junior Clerk/Typist.
The University must document the calculation method and the reasons for adopting it. The average marks are to be incorporated into the petitioner's evaluation only to the extent necessary to complete the assessment, after which her aggregate marks and final result must be determined in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules.
The Court also clarified that this corrective exercise would not permit the University to disregard any reliable assessment records that remain available or revise the marks of other candidates.
Reliance on Earlier Judicial Decisions
The Court considered earlier Supreme Court decisions concerning transparency in evaluation and the declaration of examination results, including decisions relating to disclosure of evaluated answer sheets, correction of examination assessments and disclosure of candidates' marks in the interest of public transparency.
These decisions reinforced the importance of a fair, verifiable and accountable evaluation process. However, the Court clarified that the specific direction to calculate average interview marks in the present case arose from its particular facts and the limited availability of surviving recruitment records.
Final Directions of the Court
Allowing the petitioner's limited grievance, the Allahabad High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- Examination of available records: KGMU must examine the surviving records relating to the recruitment initiated through the advertisement dated January 11, 2005, for the post of Junior Clerk/Typist.
- Calculation of average interview marks: If the petitioner's original interview marks cannot be established from reliable and verifiable records, the University must calculate average interview marks using relevant surviving records of candidates who participated in the same selection.
- Declaration of result: The University must calculate the petitioner's aggregate marks under the applicable recruitment rules and communicate her final result through a reasoned decision.
- Three-month deadline: The entire exercise, including declaration of the result, must be completed within three months from the date a certified copy of the judgment is produced before the competent authority.
- No automatic right to appointment: The Court clarified that its directions do not require the University to appoint the petitioner, fill all 40 advertised vacancies or disturb appointments already made.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
The decision highlights the responsibility of public recruitment authorities to maintain proper evaluation records and ensure that selection processes are concluded transparently. It reinforces the principle that administrative difficulties, including the loss or non-availability of historical records, cannot automatically justify leaving a candidate without a determinable recruitment outcome.
At the same time, the judgment maintains an important distinction between the right to fair consideration and an automatic right to appointment. A candidate's final selection must still be determined according to the applicable recruitment rules and comparative merit.
Case: Ruchi Sinha v. U.P. King George Dental Science University and Others
Court: Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Case Number: Writ-A No. 7470 of 2005
Judge: Justice Irshad Ali
Date of Judgment: October 28, 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:77661