The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Anant Kumar Rao challenging the rejection of his candidature for the post of Prosecutor in the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Court held that he did not meet the essential experience requirement as on the cut-off date.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan delivered the judgment on February 13, 2026 in W.P.(C) 15303/2025, Anant Kumar Rao v. Union Public Service Commission and Ors. The Bench upheld the July 23, 2025 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had dismissed the petitioner’s Original Application.
Background of the Recruitment
The dispute arose from Advertisement No. 18/2022 issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The advertisement invited online recruitment applications for twelve posts of Prosecutor in the SFIO.
The Recruitment Notice required candidates holding a five-year integrated law degree to possess two years’ experience in handling litigation and court matters or administration of law in a government organisation. Note-I and Note-II of the advertisement allowed the UPSC to relax qualifications and experience at its discretion, for reasons recorded in writing.
The last date to submit the online application was October 13, 2022.
Petitioner’s Claim
Anant Kumar Rao, who belongs to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, applied for the post. In his Online Recruitment Application (ORA), he disclosed experience with Willard Advisory Pvt. Ltd. from March 1, 2020 to October 13, 2022. He claimed 2 years, 7 months and 13 days of experience.
He described his duties as drafting and negotiating contracts, handling corporate compliance documentation, dealing with intellectual property matters, and performing related corporate legal work.
Later, he sought to rely on additional experience certificates relating to other engagements.
Rejection of Candidature
The UPSC rejected his candidature. It recorded that he lacked the required two years’ experience in handling litigation and court matters or administration of law in a government organisation.
The Commission further noted that:
- Certain experience periods were not claimed in the ORA.
- Some periods were unsupported by admissible certificates as on the cut-off date.
- Other experience related to periods beyond October 13, 2022.
Proceedings Before the CAT
The petitioner approached the CAT. During the pendency of the case, the Tribunal permitted him to provisionally participate in the selection process. It directed that his result be kept in a sealed cover.
However, after examining the pleadings and submissions, the CAT dismissed the Original Application.
Submissions Before the High Court
Before the High Court, Dr. Kamini Lau, along with Ms. Jyoti Vashisht, Ms. Suniti Bhatt and Mr. Rudraksh Jain, appeared for the petitioner. They argued that the UPSC should have considered the additional certificates. They also contended that the petitioner deserved relaxation under Note-I and Note-II, particularly because he belongs to the ST category. Further, they submitted that actual court appearances were not mandatory for the post.
For the UPSC (Respondents 1 and 2), Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Mr. Vasu Agarwal and Mr. Lekh Raj Singh appeared. Mr. Shrey Sharawat, SPC, along with Mr. Arvind, GP and Ms. Ishita Misra appeared for Respondents 3 and 4.
Court’s Analysis
The Bench examined the duties attached to the post of Prosecutor. These included assisting in filing prosecutions and complaints, coordinating with government counsels, maintaining court case databases, and pursuing case progress.
The Court found that the experience requirement had a rational nexus with these duties.
It noted that in the ORA, the petitioner had claimed experience only with Willard Advisory Pvt. Ltd. The duties disclosed mainly involved corporate contract drafting and compliance work. The petitioner did not assert before the Tribunal that he had appeared in court or engaged in court proceedings as part of that employment.
The Court emphasised that eligibility must be assessed on the basis of disclosures made in the application as on the cut-off date. A candidate cannot improve eligibility by producing additional material after the closing date.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The Bench relied on Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 85. The Supreme Court in that case held that recruitment must strictly follow the terms of the advertisement. Relaxation of conditions is impermissible unless specifically reserved and duly publicised. Otherwise, it would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court held that Note-I and Note-II confer discretionary power on the UPSC. They do not create an enforceable right in favour of any candidate. The petitioner’s ST status, by itself, did not mandate relaxation.
Conclusion
The Court found no arbitrariness, mala fides or patent illegality in the decision of the UPSC or the CAT. It held that the Tribunal’s view was plausible and consistent with settled principles of judicial review in service matters.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. All pending applications also stood disposed of.
