Blessed Prabhat Ranjan Nayak vs AIIMS
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
Reserved on 14.10.2026 Pronounced on 15.10.2026
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Blessed Prabhat Ranjan Nayak, Aged about 38
years, Son of Bibhudutta Nayak, R/O- ITDA
Colony, PO- Jharigaon, Via- Umerkote,
DistNabarangpur, Odisha- 764076, At present
residing at- SB21, Aditya Enclave,
Chandrasekharpur, Patia, Dist-Khurda,
Odisha- 751031.
……Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through
Secretary, Department of Health & Family
Welfare, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New
Delhi-110011.
2. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIMS),
Bhubaneswar, represented through its
Executive Director, At-Sijua, P.O- Dumduma,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751019.
3. Senior Administrative Officer, AIIMS,
Bhubaneswar, At-Sijua, Р.O- Dumduma,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751019.
4. Administrative Officer, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar,
At-Sijua, Р.O- Dumduma, Bhubaneswar,
Odisha- 751019.
……Respondents
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
For the applicant : Mr. K.C.Kanungo, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. A.C.Deo, Counsel
Mr. B.Nayak, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The case of the applicant in nutshell is that he was working
as PSW under the National Health Mission in the establishment
of DMO(MS)-cum-Superintendent, DHH, Baripada, Mayurbhanj.
Respondent No.2 issued Advertisement No. AIIMS.BBSR/RECT/
2023/990/B&C/1583 dated 01.07.2023 inviting applications
[online mode] for Group 'B' and 'C' posts (Non-Faculty) of AIIMS,
Bhubaneswar within a period of 30 days from the date of
advertisement. Thereafter, through Notice No. RECT/6/2023-
REC SEC dated 18.08.2023, the last date of submission of
application for Phase-II was extended till 09.09.2023.
2. On 08.09.2023, the applicant submitted his application for
the post of Psychiatric Social Worker [in short, PSW] in OBC
(NCL) category. He was subjected to Computer Based Test (CBT)
held on 19.11.2023, result of which was published on
20.12.2023, in which the applicant came out successful. After
document verification on 28.12.2023, final result for the post of
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
3 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
PSW was published on 20.03.2024 and the applicant was issued
with the offer of appointment. After being relieved on
20.04.2024 from his previous employment, he joined as PSW in
AIIMS, Bhubaneswar on 26.04.2024 and, while working as such,
without any notice or without following due procedure of rules
and cardinal principle of natural justice, Resp. No.3 cancelled his
offer of appointment vide order dated 27.05.2024. According to
him, the cancellation of his appointment being de hors the rules,
law and principle of natural justice, he filed this OA seeking to
quash the Order of cancellation of his appointment dated
27.05.2024 passed by the Respondent No.3, being illegal,
arbitrary and offending to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India, and to direct the respondents to reinstate him in service
along with all the consequential service benefits.
3. Respondents filed counter stating therein that the
applications were invited for three posts of Psychiatric Social
Worker (PSW) category in AIIMS, BBSR from the candidates
having Essential Educational Qualification of M.A. or M.Sc Degree
in Psychology/Psychiatric Social Work from a recognised
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
4 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
institute/University with 5 years working experience in
vocational guidance and counseling in Psychiatric Centre and
Specialization in Social Psychology was provided as the desirable
qualification. Out of three vacancies, two vacancies belong to UR
Category and the remaining one vacancy belong to OBC Category.
The advertisement was published on 15.07.2023 in the
Employment News and, therefore, the Cut of Date for submission
of application, eligibility regarding Age, Experience, Educational
Qualification & and others was 13.08.2023.
3.1 Applicant submitted online application for the post of PSW
in OBC Category on 08.09.2023 and e-admit card bearing roll No.
142721000002 was issued to him for Computer Based Test
scheduled to be held on 19.11.2023. After completion of
necessary formalities, with the approval of the competent
authority, select list was published on 20.03.2024, which was
intimated to all the selectees through email including the
applicant along with the Offer of Appointment and a list of
documents that are required to be brought/furnished by the
selectees for scrutiny at the time of reporting for joining the post.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
5 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
In the said Offer of Appointment, it was categorically mentioned
that the offer of appointment is purely provisional and subject to
fulfillment of all eligibility criteria such as Age, Educational
Qualification, Experience, NoC/relieving order etc. as per the
Advertisement and if it is found that the candidates are not
fulfilling the same at any stage, the Offer of Appointment will be
treated as cancelled even after joining the post. The applicant
submitted his acceptance of Offer in letter dated 02.04.2024 and,
accordingly, by submitting all the required documents, he joined
the post of PSW, AIMS, BBSR on 26.04.2024.
3.2 During verification of the documents submitted by the
applicant, at the time of his joining, it was noticed that at the time
of submission of online application, he had submitted two
experience certificates, viz. experience certificate of 2 years and
1 day [13.08.2016 to 13.08.2018] in PSW of Post Graduate
Institute of Behavioural and Medical Sciences, Raipur when he
was a student of M.Phil on roll in the said Institution and of the
National Health Mission, Baripada for 4 years and six months
[20.02.2019 to 31.08.2023]. Whereas, at the time of reporting for
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
6 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
joining the post on 26.04.2024, he furnished experience
certificate dated 15.02.2019 for 6 months and 11 days
[07.08.2018 to 11.02.2019] issued by Dr. Samrat Kar, The Clinic
& Treatment Center for Mind & Nervous Diseases, Purighat Road,
Cuttack.
3.3 The aforesaid anomaly was placed before the Executive
Director, AIIMS for consideration and it was found that at the
time of submission of online application form the applicant had
shortfall in working experience in vocational guidance and
counseling in Psychiatric Centre. The last date of submission of
online application was dated 13.08.2023 for the purpose of
working experience, i.e. 5 years, but the applicant submitted
fresh experience certificate at the time of reporting for joining
contrary to the experience certificate furnished at the time of
submission of online application form in order to cover up the
short-fall in experience, which is unjust and illegal. The settled
principle of law as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
M.V.Nair -Vrs- Union of India [Three Judge Bench] is that the
suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
7 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
the last date for receiving application. The offer of appointment
issued to the applicant on 20.03.2024 was purely provisional
and, as per clause-8, it is subject to fulfilling all eligibility criteria
such as Age, Educational Qualification, Experience etc. as per the
Advertisement. Further, Clause-10.C.ii of the offer of
appointment expressly provides that certificate(s) proving
Requisite Experience as per the advertisement for the post being
offered and experience in this regard are to be recognised by the
appropriate authority, Government of India after obtaining
essential qualification. The experience certificate has clearly
mentioned the number of IPD beds, the hospital is having from
where the experience certificate obtained.
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant, in course of hearing,
submitted that after facing rigorous selection process and
coming out successful, applicant got offer of appointment for the
post of PSW; his joining report was accepted by the Competent
Authority on 26.04.2024; and, he was allowed to work from
26.04.2024. But, after one month and one day, his appointment
was cancelled on 27.05.2024, without any notice. However, by
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
8 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
virtue of the interim order of this Bench and after the order of
the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 12462/2025,
applicant was allowed by the Respondents to join in his duties on
05.05.2026 and he has been continuing as such till date. It is
stated that possession of essential educational qualification was
not in dispute. The only dispute relates to the computation of the
requisite five years' experience in vocational counselling and
guidance in a psychiatric centre. Respondents computed the
applicant's experience only up to 13.08.2023, treating that date
as the cut-off date for determining eligibility. On that basis, they
have held that the Applicant fell short of the prescribed
experience. The Applicant submitted online application for the
post of PSW in response to the Notice dated 18.08.2023 as per
which the opening date of submission of online application was
19.08.2023 and the closing date was 09.09.2023. Holding cut-off
date as 13.08.2023 for inviting online applications as per Phase II
Notice dated 18.08.2023 is contrary to the recruitment
Notification itself. The Advertisement dated 01.07.2023 was
published in Employment News/Rozgar Samachar on
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
9 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
15.07.2023, but the online application portal for Phase-II, which
includes the post of Psychiatric Social Worker (SI No. 4), was
opened only on 19.08.2023. The Applicant submitted his online
application on 08.09.2023, i.e. well before the closing date of
09.09.2023. There was no opportunity whatsoever for the
Applicant to submit an online application before 19.08.2023.
Consequently, fixing 13.08.2023 as the cut-off date for
determining eligibility is arbitrary, irrational, and contrary to the
recruitment notification. A candidate is not expected to satisfy
eligibility on a date preceding the commencement of the
application process for the concerned post. The Respondents
themselves, in their counter, admitted that eligibility is to be
determined with reference to the last date prescribed for receipt
of applications. Having admitted, the Respondents cannot
simultaneously rely the cut off date as 13.08.2023. Thus, the
allegation is self-contradictory and unsustainable in law. It is
stated that the applicant's experience ought to have been
reckoned up to the closing date of receipt of online applications,
i.e. 09.09.2023 and not 13.08.2023. The Applicant applied one
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
10 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
day before the closing date, i.e. on 08.09.2023. If the correct cut-
off date is applied in accordance with the Respondents' own
admission and as per the terms of the Recruitment Notification,
the rejection of the applicant's candidature on the ground of
alleged deficiency in experience is not legally tenable. Rather, the
working experience of the applicant is/was for 05 years and 14
days. The Applicant joined AIIMS after leaving a government
assignment. In the process of litigation, he became over-aged. His
legitimate expectation was frustrated by the Respondents
without any legal basis after allowing him to join and work for a
period of one month and one day. Hence the reliefs prayed for by
the Applicant are to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has
submitted that the essential qualification and experience for the
said post are prescribed as master degree in psychiatric social
work from recognized institution/university and 5 years
experience in vocational guidance counseling in psychiatric
Centre, Desirable specialization in social psychology. The
applicant applied through online, wherein he submitted two
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
11 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
experience certificates for showing 5 years experience, viz. two
years experience as PSW during his M.Phil study from the post
Graduate Institute of Behavioral and medical sciences, Raipur
from 13.08.2016 to 13.08.2018 when he was prosecuted his
study, which was not admissible being reacquisition of
qualification; and, the other one of PSW at National Health
Mission, Baripada from 20.02.2019 to 31.08.2023 i.e. 4 years 6
months 11 days. However, he, at the time of document
verification for joining the post on 26.04.2024, managed to
obtain/arrange another fresh experience certificate dated
15.02.2019 for the period from 07.08.2018 to 11.02.2019, i.e. 6
months 04/11 days issued by Dr. Samrat Kar only to cover up the
shortfall period of 6 months 5 days from 5 years required
experience, which certificate was not submitted by him at the
time of his online application and, hence, the said certificate
cannot be accepted under law. However, inadvertently, the said
experience Certificate was accepted and the offer of provisional
appointment was issued to him subject to acceptance of the
terms and conditions made therein. The applicant accepted the
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
12 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
terms and conditions and joined on 26.04.2024. The discrepancy
relating to acquisition of five years experience having been
noticed during verification of the documents, the offer of his
appointment was cancelled vide order dated 23.05.2024. It is
stated that the experience certificate obtained from National
Health Mission Baripada is the only acceptable certificate having
4 years 6 moths and 11 days experience and, accordingly, as per
his application, applicant is having only 4 years 6 months 11
days work experience against required 5 years experience
certificate as mentioned in the Advertisement. Accordingly, it is
stated that this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be
dismissed.
6. Before delving into the matter, it may be noted that after
giving due opportunity to the respondents, this passed ad
interim order on 06.02.2025, relevant portion of which is quoted
below:
“ 7. After considering the submissions noted
above, perused the documents and the materials
placed on record. The acceptance of the offer by
the applicant vide application dated 02.04.2024
and his joining on 26.04.2024 after being
relieved from his previous employment have
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
13 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
not been disputed in the objection filed by the
respondents or in course of hearing . Rather, the
respondents have submitted in paragraph 4 of the
objection that after the applicant reported for
joining in pursuance of the offer of
appointment, during verification of documents,
the so called discrepancies came to notice . But,
neither it is the case of the respondents nor the
respondents have produced any such documents
evidencing that his joining report was withhold
pending verification of documents. After a gap of
one month and one day of his joining, the offer
of appointment was cancelled unilaterally . The
applicant was selected through a positive act of
selection after going through the rigours of various
process of the test. Since, as to how far the
respondents are justified in cancelling the offer of
appointment is to be tested in the touchstone of the
provision of rules vis a vis the documents
produced by the parties, prima facie we feel that
irreparable injury will be caused to the applicant
in case no interim order is granted at this stage.
Further also, we find that in the given
circumstances, balance of convenience lies in
favour of the applicant. Hence, for the ends of
justice, the order of cancellation of offer of
appointment dated 27.05.2024 is stayed with
direction to the respondents to allow the
applicant to perform his duty as PSW in AIIMS,
Bhubaneswar pending final decision in this
OA .” [emphasis added]
7. Respondents filed Review Application No. 06/2025
seeking review of the aforesaid order, which was dismissed on
26.03.2025. The respondents-AIIMS challenged the interim order
dated 06.02.2025 passed in this OA and the order dated
26.03.2026 passed in RA No. 06/2025 before the Hon’ble High
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
14 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 12462/2025, which was disposed
of on 24.03.2026 without any interference in the orders of this
Bench. Ld. Counsel for the applicant, in course of hearing, has
submitted that on the strength of the interim order, the applicant
has been continuing under the AIIMS, Bhubaneswar.
8. After giving indepth consideration to the arguments
advanced by the parties, we have perused the pleadings of the
parties and gone through the materials placed in support thereof.
It is not in dispute both in the pleadings as well as in course of
hearing that based on the online application, accompanied with
the documents, applicant was subjected to various tests for the
post of PSW and upon being qualified in the positive act of
selection, he was issued with the Offer of Appointment and,
accordingly, the applicant joined in the post of PSW in the AIIMS,
BBSR, of course, his joining was subject to the terms and
conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment dated
20.03.2024. Once, a candidate is selected and joined in the
selected post, the offer of appointment gets exhausted and the
person concerned is covered and governed by the set of rules
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
15 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
framed by the Govt. of India commonly known as Central Civil
Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Thus, as per the
provision of the said rules, the service of the employee can be
terminated without assigning any reason by giving three months
notice or three months in lieu thereof. Further, law is well settled
that if the termination, in the instant case cancellation of offer of
appointment, is by way of assigning reason, in such an
eventuality, respondents were duty bound to give opportunity to
the employee concerned of being heard in compliance with the
principle of natural justice because it is settled law that not able
to answer is no answer not to comply with the cardinal principle
of natural justice. But, the respondents done away with the job of
the applicant without following due principles of rules and
natural justice to the extent stated above.
9. It is also established that the respondents made the
applicant to face the rigorous of the tests with the experience
certificates which he had submitted along with his application,
i.e. experience certificate of 2 years and 1 day [13.08.2016 to
13.08.2018] in PSW of Post Graduate Institute of Behavioural
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
16 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
and Medical Sciences, Raipur when he was a student of M.Phil on
roll in the said Institution and of the National Health Mission,
Baripada for 4 years and six months [20.02.2019 to 31.08.2023].
It is not the case of the respondents that the applicant
fraudulently or by misrepresentation applied, appeared, got
selected and appointed. It is not the case of the respondents that
the first experience certificate from 13.08.2016 to 13.08.2018, i.e
two years and one day, was fraudulent one. Before being
selected, he worked in The Clinic & Treatment Center for Mind &
Nervous Diseases, Purighat Road, Cuttack and gathered
experience for 6 months and 11 days [07.08.2018 to
11.02.2019], for which he was issued the certificate which he had
produced. But, according to the respondents’ counsel, the said
certificate was managed/arranged by the applicant, which
submission cannot be accepted in absence of proper
verification/inquiry from the Doctor, who had issued the
certificate that too after giving due opportunity to the applicant
because law is well settled that however suspicion grave may be
that cannot be proved in a domestic inquiry. Admittedly, the
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
17 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
applicant after resigning from the previous employment joined
the post at AIIMS, BBSR based on the offer of appointment. He
has been continuing to discharge his duty as PSW till date but no
such adverse evidence has been brought into our notice by the
respondents in discharging the onerous duties by the applicant.
10. It is also needless to state that the Hon’ble Apex Court has
consistently held that once a candidate is selected and appointed
through a fair process, the cancellation of his/her appointment
without any proven allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or
deceit is arbitrary, violates natural justice, and is bad in law. If a
candidate secured a post honestly without hiding facts or
cheating, a later cancellation or termination cannot be sustained.
Cancelling an appointment or terminating a confirmed public
servant requires a proper departmental inquiry and a chance to
be heard; omnibus or sudden cancellation orders are legally
invalid. Valid selection and continuous service create a legal right
for the employee, preventing the authority from revoking the
appointment arbitrarily. Recently, the Hon’ble Allahabad High
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
18 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others ,
2025:AHC:130987, held as under:
“54. In the present case, it is evident from the
record that the petitioner did not indulge in
any act of concealment or misrepresentation at
the time of seeking appointment. All relevant
documents were submitted and duly
scrutinized by the competent authority before
the appointment was offered. As such, the
appointment cannot be termed as illegal or
void. It is a settled principle of law that an
appointment made after due verification and
without any fraudulent intent cannot be
cancelled merely on technical grounds or
assumptions. In the absence of any material
irregularity or violation of the prescribed
procedure, the petitioner's appointment stands
on firm legal footing and is not liable to be
annulled retrospectively.”
11. We have come across of a decision of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the case of Union of India & Ors
Vs. Pradeep Tomar , W.P(C) No. 2529/2015 dated 18.03.2015,
wherein, upon being selected, during verification of documents,
due to shortfall of some conditions in the notification,
appointment was denied to the said applicant. The Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, allowed the benefit to the applicant on the ground
that the candidate can't be made to suffer at such a later stage,
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
19 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
for a fault that was unintentional on his part and something that
could have been intimated to him by the authorities at the initial
or nascent stage itself, rather than waiting for the entire process
to get over and suddenly realizing the deficiency. The Hon’ble
Court observed that the plight of the candidate, who is on
tenterhooks, is going through a myriad of emotions, his dreams
at the verge of being jeopardised. It was also observed that -
“16. To err is human, is a well accepted notion. So far
as the applicability of this notion in the field of service
or recruitment is concerned, the error should be of a
very trivial nature and due to an inadvertent error on
the candidate's part, which by no means is deliberate
or intentional or to derive some undue advantage. In
any case, even where such kind of error takes place,
it is for the recruiting agency to point out the same at
the earliest possible stage so that the candidate can
know the fate of his candidature instead of allowing
him to fully participate in the entire selection process
to be told at the end that he cannot make it because of
the application being not signed or some column
having been left blank or the form being not filled
with the required ball point pen, etc. Rejection on
such grounds after the completion of the entire
selection process will certainly be devastating and
catastrophic for the candidate, especially the one who
had participated in all the processes laid down for the
selection and was declared successful and is now just
waiting for his letter of appointment. In a country like
ours, where getting a job is scarce and far between,
getting a job, let alone a dream job is like a dream
come true, and one can very well imagine the trauma
a person would have to undergo, if at a belated stage,
he gets to know that his candidature has been turned
down, owing to an inadvertent error.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
20 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
17. Rejection can be justified only at some early
stage, not at the stage of final selection. The argument
of administrative convenience cannot be used to
jettison the mandate of Article 14. Nothing prevented
the petitioners, from properly scrutinising the
application form at the initial stage itself, which would
stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
12. The legal proposition highlighted by Ld. Counsel for the
applicant is a well-settled principle under Indian administrative
law and service jurisprudence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
often held that once a candidate is issued an offer of appointment
and he submitted his joining report, the employer-employee
relationship is substantially initiated. Once an employee has
formally submitted a joining report, a vested right or an active
employment status begins to accrue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
already clarified that administrative authorities cannot
summarily cancel an appointment or terminate service without
affording a proper opportunity of a hearing or issuing a show-
cause notice. Doing so violates the core rules of natural justice,
making the termination order bad in law and void. The authority
must establish that the candidate willfully suppressed or
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
21 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
misrepresented material facts before cancelling a job offer after
the joining report has been submitted.
13. We also find that subjecting a candidate with the rigorous
of positive act of selection after scrutinizing the declaration made
by him/her in the application form supported with documents
and declaring him/her successful in the selection, denying the
candidate appointment, on the ground that the candidate did not
fulfill the conditions stipulated in the rules that too after sending
him pre-requisite training and its successful completion whether
such candidate got a right for appointment, finally received due
consideration of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of
India Vs Uzair Imran & Ors, 2023 INSC 901, in which Their
Lordships directed for giving appointment holding that it is
entirely the prerogative of the employer, after applications are
received from interested candidates or names of registered
candidates are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges for
public employment, to decide whether any such candidate
intending to participate in the selection process is eligible in
terms of the statutorily prescribed rules for appointment and
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
22 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
also as to whether he ought to be allowed to enter the zone of
consideration, i.e., to participate in the selection process. It is
only when evidence of a sterling quality is produced before the
court which, without much argument or deep scrutiny, tilts the
balance in favour of one party that the court could decide either
way based on acceptance of such evidence. It was not within the
province of the department to scrutinize the certificate of the
candidate with an approach of “one eye open, one eyed closed”
and declare that his intermediate education was in a “vocational
stream”, overlooking or ignoring that the self-same certificate
bore the remark ‘Regular’. The determination of the department,
undoubtedly hinged on its scarce knowledge of the nature of the
candidate’s education, evincing that his exclusion was not on the
basis of a valid and proper reason and was, decidedly,
arbitrary. However, if the candidature is not rejected at the
threshold and the candidate is allowed to participate in the
selection process and ultimately his name figures in the merit list
- though such candidate has no indefeasible right to claim
appointment - he does have a limited right of being accorded fair
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
23 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
and non- discriminatory treatment. Given the stages of the
process that the candidate has successfully crossed, he may not
have a vested right of appointment but a reasonable expectation
of being appointed having regard to his position in the merit list
could arise. The employer, if it is a State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution, would have no authority to act in
an arbitrary manner and throw the candidate out from the range
of appointment, as distinguished from the zone of consideration,
without rhyme or reason. The employer-State being bound by
Article 14 of the Constitution, the law places an obligation, nay
duty, on such an employer to provide some justification by way
of reason. If plausible justification is provided, the courts would
be loath to question the justification but the justification must be
such that it is rational and justifiable, and not whimsical or
capricious, warranting non-interference. The relevant portion of
the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case is
quoted below:
“9. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused
the materials on record.
10. The submission of Mr. Mishra that the Amendment
Rules were not published in the official gazette is without
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
24 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
any substance. It appears that the Amendment Rules
th
were duly published in the Gazette of India dated 15
February, 1992, a copy whereof has been produced by
Ms. Bhati. She is, therefore, right in her contention that
the Amendment Rules became operational on and from
15th February, 1992, much before the process for
recruitment had commenced.
11. It is true that neither in the letter dated 17th April,
1995 requisitioning names of eligible candidates from
the Employment Exchange nor in the advertisement
dated 12th June, 1995 inviting applications from eligible
candidates was it mentioned that the candidates clearing
the requisite examination conducted by a recognized
University or Board through vocational stream would
stand excluded. However, nothing much turns on it. Law
is well-settled that if qualifications mentioned in an
advertisement inviting applications are at variance with
statutorily prescribed qualifications, it is the latter that
would prevail. Profitable reference in this connection
may be made to the decisions of this Court in Malik
Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission and
Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
12. It is observed that the Tribunal or the High Court did
not have the occasion to advert to the certificate issued in
favour of the third respondent and proceeded to decide
the Original Application, the Writ Petition and the Review
Applications (2006) 9 SCC 507 (2018) 3 SCC 55 without
any reference to the Amendment Rules because of inept
handling of the case by the appellant. We are in
agreement with Ms. Bhati that at least the High Court,
having regard to the disclosure of the Amendment Rules
in the Writ Petition as well as the ground urged in the
Review Application, was clearly wrong in not rectifying
the error which was apparent on the face of the record.
13. However, the aforesaid observations of ours do not
advance the cause of the appellant in view of the
contention advanced on behalf of the third respondent
referring to the certificate which was issued to him by the
said Board. Such certificate enumerates the subjects
which he read during his intermediate education. Out of
a total of four subjects, two of them (Hindi and English)
are described as vocational subjects. Importantly, the
certificate which is partly in vernacular also bears at its
foot the remark ‘Regular’ in English. It has been
contended on behalf of the third respondent that
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
25 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
‘Regular’ in the certificate signifies regular stream and
not vocational stream.
14. Normally, it is not the function of the court to
determine equivalence of two qualifications and/or to
scrutinise a particular certificate and say, on the basis of
its appreciation thereof, that the holder thereof satisfies
the eligibility criteria and, thus, is qualified for
appointment. It is entirely the prerogative of the
employer, after applications are received from
interested candidates or names of registered candidates
are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges for public
employment, to decide whether any such candidate
intending to participate in the selection process is
eligible in terms of the statutorily prescribed rules for
appointment and also as to whether he ought to be
allowed to enter the zone of consideration, i.e., to
participate in the selection process. It is only when
evidence of a sterling quality is produced before the
court which, without much argument or deep scrutiny,
tilts the balance in favour of one party that the court
could decide either way based on acceptance of such
evidence.
15. Notwithstanding this settled legal position, the stage
when ineligibility is cited for not offering employment
also assumes importance. It is indeed indisputable that
none has any legal right to claim public employment. In
terms of Article 16 of the Constitution, a candidate has
only a right to be considered therefor. Once a candidate
is declared ineligible to participate in the selection
process at the threshold and if he still wishes to
participate in the process perceiving that his candidature
has been arbitrarily rejected, it is for him to work out his
remedy in accordance with law. However, if the
candidature is not rejected at the threshold and the
candidate is allowed to participate in the selection
process and ultimately his name figures in the merit list -
though such candidate has no indefeasible right to claim
appointment - he does have a limited right of being
accorded fair and non- discriminatory treatment. Given
the stages of the process that the candidate has
successfully crossed, he may not have a vested right of
appointment but a reasonable expectation of being
appointed having regard to his position in the merit list
could arise. The employer, if it is a State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, would have no
authority to act in an arbitrary manner and throw the
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
26 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
candidate out from the range of appointment, as
distinguished from the zone of consideration, without
rhyme or reason. The employer-State being bound by
Article 14 of the Constitution, the law places an
obligation, nay duty, on such an employer to provide
some justification by way of reason. If plausible
justification is provided, the courts would be loath to
question the justification but the justification must be
such that it is rational and justifiable, and not whimsical
or capricious, warranting non-interference.
16. In the facts of the present case, the stage of
declaration of ineligibility seems to us to turn the tide in
favour of the third respondent. If the appellant had
declared the third respondent as ineligible based on the
appellant’s appreciation of the educational qualification
of the third respondent at the threshold, the situation
would have entirely been different. However, it was not
at the threshold that the third respondent was considered
ineligible. As the factual narrative would reveal, the
appellant had considered the third respondent eligible,
allowed him to take part in the various tests in connection
with the selection process, interviewed him, placed his
name quite high in the merit list, and thereafter sent him
for 15 days’ pre-induction training starting from 15th
March, 1996. It was after a week that the letter dated
22nd March, 1996 was issued which resulted in ouster of
the third respondent from the range of appointment.
17. There is little doubt that the decision to treat the third
respondent as ineligible was based on the certificate;
however, there is no gainsaying that the certificate
produced by the third respondent in support of his claim
that he had qualified in the relevant examination and,
thus, was eligible to be considered for appointment, did
leave room for two views. It is settled law that unfettered
discretion, unaccountable approach and arbitrariness in
State action are antithesis to Article 14; and, particularly
when two views could possibly emerge looking at the
certificate of educational qualification placed by the third
respondent, with both views not being wholly unworthy
of acceptance, fairness in administrative procedure
demanded that the appellant ought to have given reason,
howsoever brief, as to why it preferred to consider the
third respondent to have succeeded in the relevant
examination through “vocational stream”, thereby
attracting ineligibility, without considering the effect of
the remark ‘Regular’ at the foot of the certificate. The
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
27 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
contents of the letter dated 22nd March, 1996, which
sounded the death knell for the third respondent, is
clearly suggestive of a general direction given to the
addressee Postmasters General; they were not called
upon to scrutinise each certificate on its merits. As such,
there was no individual rejection but a general rejection
without applying one’s mind to the contents of the
certificate. It was, thus, highly improper for the appellant
to reject the candidature of the third respondent outright
in the absence of a proper appreciation of the certificate.
18. Even if it is assumed that the certificate was duly
looked into, we are inclined to the view on facts (given
the contents of the certificate produced by the third
respondent and in the absence of conclusive information
as to the nature of education imparted to the third
respondent at the intermediate level) that the appellant
ought to have, in the least, requested for a clarification
from the said Board as to whether the third respondent
could be treated to have cleared the intermediate
examination of 1991 in “vocational stream” or in the
category of ‘Regular’ and, thus, was (in)eligible to
compete for appointment in terms of the 1990 Rules, as
amended. It was not within the province of the appellant
to scrutinise the certificate of the third respondent with
an approach of “one eye open, one eyed closed” and
declare that his intermediate education was in a
“vocational stream”, overlooking or ignoring that the
self-same certificate bore the remark ‘Regular’. The
determination of the appellant, in the present case,
undoubtedly hinged on its scarce knowledge of the
nature of the third respondent’s education, evincing that
his exclusion was not on the basis of a valid and proper
reason and was, decidedly, arbitrary.
19. The principle that if two views are reasonably
possible on a given set of facts and that the courts would
stay away from interference and not substitute its view
for the view taken by the employer, may not apply in a
case of the present nature where the conflicting views
could be resolved by a mere reference to the certificate
issuing authority to clarify what the certificate connoted.
After all, the future of a prospective appointee called for
an approach consistent with the preambular promise of
securing justice and equality of opportunity, which the
appellant failed to secure.
20. The third respondent, in our view, has been
discriminated against and arbitrarily deprived of the fruit
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
28 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
of selection. At this distance of time, it would not be
worthwhile to order a remand particularly when the
appellant is responsible for the lis being prolonged in
excess of two decades. There has been utter
carelessness on its part in not producing the Amendment
Rules and the gazette notification before the Tribunal.
The third respondent, therefore, cannot suffer for such
carelessness and has to be given what is due to him. At
the same time, we cannot overlook that by passage of
time, the third respondent has crossed the maximum age
for entry into public employment. He is 50 years old now
and the age of superannuation is reported to be 60 years.
In such a situation, we propose to dispose of this appeal
by making appropriate directions in exercise of our
power to do complete justice between the parties under
Article 142 of the Constitution.
21. Accordingly, it is directed that:
(i) The third respondent shall be offered appointment,
initially on probation, by the appellant on a post of Postal
Assistant (for which he was selected) within a month from
date;
(ii) If no post is vacant, a supernumerary post shall be
created;
(iii) Subject to satisfactory completion of the period of
probation, the third respondent shall be confirmed in
service;
(iv) Should service rendered during probation be
considered not satisfactory, the appellant will be entitled
to proceed in accordance with law;
(v) Having not actually worked, the third respondent
shall neither be entitled to arrears of salary nor shall he
be entitled to claim seniority from the date of
appointment of other candidates who participated in the
recruitment process of 1995;
(vi) Since the third respondent, if confirmed after
successful period of probationary service, would have
less than 10 years’ service to his credit and consequently
would fall short of qualifying service for pension and
other retiral benefits, the appellant shall treat him to
have been notionally appointed on the date the last of the
selected candidates was appointed pursuant to the
process of 1995 only for the purpose of release of such
benefits in accordance with law; and
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
29 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
(vii) In such case, his retiral benefits shall be computed
based on the last pay drawn by him while in service.”
14. The order of termination was held illegal by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Union Of India & Others vs Bikash
Kuanar , Appeal (Civil) No. 4388 of 2006 dated 11.10.2006, by
holding that the candidate was recruited not only on the basis of
marks obtained by him in the educational qualification, but also
upon consideration of various other criteria necessary therefor.
He filed all necessary and requisite documents. The candidature
of all the candidates has been considered on their own merits
and, thus, when a Selection Committee recommends selection of
a person, the same cannot be presumed to have been done in a
mechanical manner in absence of any allegation of favouritism or
bias. A presumption arises in regard to the correctness of the
Official Act. In the present case, the applicant submitted all the
documents, faced the due process of selection and it was only
after the recommendation of the selection committee, he was
issued with the offer of appointment pursuant to which, the
applicant joined as PSW in AIIMS, Bhubaneswar on 26.04.2024.
It is not the case of the Respondents that the applicant
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
30 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
suppressed any such materials or the ground based on which his
offer has been cancelled is in any manner attributable to the
applicant. Rather, we find that prior to selection and
appointment, the applicant was serving in State Govt. and,
pursuant to the offer of appointment, in question, he resigned
from his previous service and submitted joining report before
the AIIMS, BBSR. In such a scenario, action terminating the offer,
does not sound to appeal to judicial conscience. Admittedly, the
applicant is continuing to serve AIIMS, Bhubaneswar on the
strength of the interim order of this Bench dated 06.02.2025 and
gained the experience meanwhile. The respondents department
also did not point out any deficiency relating to the discharge of
duty by the applicant. As it appears, he also became overaged by
now to apply for any govt. job and throwing him out from
employment at this stage would definitely have a cascading effect
to his life.
15. In view of the facts and law discussed above, we find
sufficient merit in this OA for granting the relief to the applicant.
Hence, the cancellation of offer of appointment of the applicant
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'
31 O.A.No. 260/00335 of 2024
dated 27.05.2024 is hereby quashed and since he has been
continuing in the post in question, he is entitled to all
consequential service benefits accordingly. OA is accordingly
allowed. Pending, MA, if any, also stands disposed of. Costs made
easy.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.10.15 16:03:15
+05'30'