Neeraj Kumar vs NATIONAL INFORMATICS CENTRE
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
OA No.962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
(Full Bench)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.962/2025
M.A. No.2717/2026
M.A. No.4831/2026
M.A.No.4832/2026
With
O.A. No.458/2026
M.A. No.3003/2026
Reserved on: 13.10.2026
Pronounced on: .10.2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon’ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
1. O.A. No.962/2025
1. Neeraj Kumar
Aged about 35 years
S/o Shri Maman Singh, R/o Flat no. 289
Triveni Heights, DDA MIG Flats
Sector 16 B
Dwarka Delhi-110078
2. Dhiraj Kumar Jha
Aged about 36 years
S/o Shri Anmol Jha
R/o Jafarpur P.O: Babhani
PS Dagarua, Distt-Purnia,
Bihar, Pin-855105
...Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology A-Block,
CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
2. National Informatics Centre (NIC) Through
Director General, NIC
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
A-Block, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
3. National Institute of Electronics
& Information Technology Through
Director General,
NIELIT Bhawan,
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
2
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
Plot No.3, PSP Pocket, Sector 8,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110077 ….Respondents
For Applicants: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Mr. Setu Niket, Mr. Manish Kumar
and Mr. Abhishek Yadav Advocates
For Respondents: Mr. S.M.Aatif with Mr. Abdul Kabir Khan, Advocates
-Mr.Hanu Bhaskar, Senior CGSC for Respondents/
Intervenors.
For Intervenors: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Puneet Rathi and Mohd. Shahrukh Qureshi Advocate for
Intervenor.
Mr. Krishna Kumar M and Mr. Giritharan R, Party-in-
Person.
WITH
2. O.A. No.458/2026
1. Asiya Ahmad
Aged about 35 years
D/o A.K. Nazeer Khan
R/o Puthan Purayil, Thamarakulam PO
Thamarakulam, Alappuzha
Kerala-690 530.
2. Bhuvanesh Kumar Gupta
Aged about 35 years
S/o Niranajan Lal Gupta
R/o C-195, Pocket 7, Kendriya Vihar-II
Sector 82, Noida
Uttar Pradesh -201304. ... Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secrtary
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi – 110 003.
2. National Informatics Centre (NIC) Through
Director General, NIC
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
A-Block, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
3. National Institute of Electronics
& Information Technology Through
Director General,
NIELIT Bhawan,
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
3
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
Plot No.3, PSP Pocket, Sector 8,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110077 . ….Respondents
For Applicants: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Mr. Setu Niket, Mr. Manish
Kumar and Mr. Abhishek Yadav Advocates
For Respondents: Mr. Hilal Haider, Advocate
ORDER
PER: AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. Heard the parties at substantial length.
2. These matters have been referred for consideration of question which is
overlapping and therefore have been listed together for analogous hearing.
3. This reference arises out of order dated 22.07.2026 passed by the Division
Bench of this Tribunal at Principal Bench in OA No. 962/2025, titled Neeraj Kumar
and another versus Union of India and others . When the matter was listed before the
Division Bench, two decisions, namely, Devender Singh & Ors. Versus Union of
India & Ors. O.A. No.1409/2025 with OA No.1127/2025 Kranti Gaurav & Ors.
Versus Union of India and Ors. decided vide common order dated 30.04.2026 passed
by the Principal Bench in Krishna Kumar M. Versus Union of India & Ors . in OA
No.229/2025 and with OA No.00231/2025 Giritharan R. Versus Union of India and
Ors. decided vide common order dated 15.07.2026 passed by Chennai Bench,
Chennai were cited. The Division Bench noticing the conflict of opinion thought it
apt that the controversy should be resolved by a Larger Bench and accordingly the
matter is placed before us.
4. The reference has been made to the Larger Bench for answering the following
question of
law: -
―Whether a fresh interview is required in cases of applicants, included
in the list of provisionally selected for the post of Scientist-D, or
required only to re-assess qualifications and eligibility requirements
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
4
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
prescribed in Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 and complete the
recruitment process?‖
BACKGROUND OF THE REFERENCE
5. The facts as adumbrated by the applicants in OA No.962/2025 are that the
applicants being fully eligible as per terms and conditions of the detailed advertisement
No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 dated 20 Oct. 2022, submitted their online applications for
recruitment to the post of Scientist-D. In accordance with selection process prescribed
in the Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2, the applicants appeared in three stage
process i.e. Screening Test, Evaluation of the academic records followed by interview.
Respondents directed all the shortlisted candidates to upload the requisite documents
between 17.5.2023 and 22.5.2023 and forward one set of hard copies to Nodal officer,
NIC Recruitment Examination, NIELIT, Calicut. Thereafter, the respondents issued a
list of candidates shortlisted for an interview for the post of Scientist-D in NIC and
revised list of shortlisted candidates for interview to the post of Scientist-C and
Scientist-D in NIC in terms of Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2. Names of the
applicants are placed in short listed list of candidates for interview for the post of
Scientist-D in NIC.
6. It is the further case of the applicants that respondents proceeded in terms of
advertisement and selection process i.e. screening test, evaluation of academic records,
and prior to the date of interview, as per terms of advertisement, for verification of
documents, call letter was issued in name of applicants for document verification and
interview (Annexure A-7) and date of document verification was given - 19.1.2024,
reporting time 8.30 AM. On the document verification done on 19.1.2024, the
interview was scheduled and held from 18.1.2024 to 20.1.2024.
7. Respondents have issued on 15.3.2024, the list of provisionally selected candidates
for the post of Scientist-D in NIC against Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2, and
name of the applicant no.1 is at serial no.6 and applicant no.2 is placed at serial
no.11 .
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
5
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
8. Applicants have submitted representation on 12.2.2025 to the respondents
requesting for an offer of appointment for the post of Scientist-D. Thereafter,
respondents have issued impugned Order dt. 25.2.2025 (Ann-A-1), whereby in highly
arbitrary, illegal manner without any notice, they have cancelled the selection process
after completing it without assigning any specific reason.
9. The list of selected candidates including the applicants was issued on 15.3.2024 vide
Annexure A-8 after due selection process in terms of advertisement No.
NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 for the post of Scientist-D in NIC. It is alleged that the
respondents have cancelled the entire panel drawn after due selection process for
Scientist-D vide impugned Order dated 25.2.2025. Hence the OA No.962/2025 has
been filed to set-aside impugned Order dt. 25.2.2025 and direct respondents to
complete the selection process in respect of the successful candidates including the
applicants herein.
10. Per Contra , the respondents have filed the Counter Reply stating that MeitY has
assigned the responsibility of conducting the recruitment examination for Scientific
and Technical posts to NIELIT/the respondent No. 2, on behalf of MeitY and its
constituent organisations including NIC, STQC and ICERT.
11. Respondents have further made averments in the reply that respondent No. 2, duly
issued Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2, inviting online applications from
20.10.2022 to 21.11.2022 for the posts of Scientist-F, Scientist-E, Scientist-D and
Scientist-C. The Clause 5 prescribed selection process -
(a) For the post of Scientist-E and Scientist-F for direct recruitment through a two-
stage process, i.e. Evaluation of academic record by Evaluation Committee by
awarding marks out of 120 marks for various parameters. The candidates are to be
shortlisted in the ratio of 1:3 based on marks obtained in the evaluation of the
academic records. Thereafter, the final merit list is to be prepared based on marks
obtained out of maximum marks of 150 marks maximum (120 marks for evaluation of
academic record and maximum 30 marks for interview).
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
6
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
(b) Sub-clause (A) of Clause 5 - Selection process in the advertisement prescribes the
selection process a three-stage process i.e. screening test, Evaluation of academic
records followed by interview for the post of Scientist-C and Scientist-D . The first
stage process is for screening test in nature of qualifying from multiple-choice
questions test and list of candidates qualifying screening test would be shortlisted in
the ratio of 1:6 (i.e. six candidates per post) in order of merit. The Shortlisted
candidates from the first-stage screening test in 1:6 ratio would then be evaluated by an
evaluation committee based on marks obtained out of maximum 120 marks, for
various parameters. Thereafter a merit list would be prepared out of 120 marks and
from this list, a shortlist of candidates in the ratio 1:3 would be called for the interview
which holds maximum 30 marks in order of merit. Thereafter, final merit list would be
prepared on maximum of 150 marks i.e. marks obtained in Evaluation Process (Max
120 marks) and in Interview (Max. 30 marks).
12. Respondents have stated in the written statement that recruitment process has been
completed for posts of Scientist-E and F and offer of appointment was issued on
15.3.2024 to the selected candidates.
13. Respondents have also stated in the reply that NIELIT conducted online
examination for 12 posts of Scientist-D and 141 posts of Scientist-C during 18.3.2023
to 21.3.2023. Thereafter, based on the written examination, NIELIT conducted
evaluation of academic records and published the list of shortlisted candidates for the
next stage of assessment for post of Scientist-D and Scientist-C to conduct interview
on 18.7.2023. Thereafter upon receipt of complaints from the candidates, the
recruitment agency, re-conducted the academic evaluation and a revised list of the
shortlisted candidates for interview was published on the recruitment portal on
29.12.2023.
14. The respondents have further stated that the document verification and interview of
the shortlisted candidates were conducted by the recruitment agency during 18.1.2024
to 20.1.2024 and a list of provisionally selected candidates for the 12 posts of
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
7
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
Scientist-D and posts of Scientist-C was published by NIELIT on 15.3.2024 . The
issuance of offer for appointment to the candidates was to be done after receipt of
physical copies of the dossiers of the candidates from the recruitment agency and its
scrutiny.
15. It is further case of the respondents that on scrutiny of dossiers of the candidates,
it was seen that a substantial number of candidates in the select list and reserve panel
did not fulfil the qualitative requirement for the post advertised. It was therefore
decided to re-evaluate the records of the provisionally selected candidates to ensure
that non-eligible candidates are not appointed at the expense of eligible candidates .
The Evaluation Committee examined the academic records of candidates in the merit
list as well as the reserve panel and recommended the criteria for consideration of
relevant experience at appropriate level.
16. Respondents have further averred that on the scrutiny of the candidate dossiers, it
was seen that more than 65% of the shortlisted candidates did not fulfil the qualitative
requirement for the post of Scientist-D and Scientist-C. In view of the above, it was
decided to cancel the recruitment process for the 12 posts of Scientist-D and 141 posts
of Scientist-C against Recruitment Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 to ensure
non-eligible candidates are not appointed at the cost of eligible candidates.
17. The similarly situated candidates had earlier approached the Principal Bench of
Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1127/2025, titled Kranti Gaurav Versus UOI and Ors.
and OA No.1409/2025 titled Devender Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors . which was
decided vide common order dated 30.04.2026, whereby the notification cancelling the
recruitment process pertaining to the posts of Scientist-C and Scientist-D was quashed
and set aside. The respondents were directed to issue appointment orders to the
candidates indicated in green in the additional affidavit dated 9.2.2026. Insofar as the
remaining candidates included in the provisional select list after the interview are
concerned, their cases were directed to be re-interviewed and eligibility re-assessed
and reconsidered by an independent committee headed by a retired Hon’ble Judge of a
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
8
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
High Court . So far as the present case in our hand is concerned, the applicants fall in
the category of candidates included in the provisional select list after the interview.
Consequently, in terms of Clause (iii) of paragraph 9.1 of the order dated 30.4.2026
passed by Principal Bench the applicants‘ cases are required to be re-interviewed and
their eligibility is to be assessed by the independent committee headed by a retired
Hon’ble Judge of a High Court .
18. Later on, similarly situated candidates approached the Chennai Bench of this
Tribunal in O.A. No. 229/2025 titled Krishna Kumar M. and in O.A. No. 231/2025,
Giritharan R. vs. UOI , decided vide Common Order dated 15.7.2026, whereby the
impugned cancellation order dated 25.2.2025 is quashed and set aside and respondents
are directed to complete the recruitment process and issue appointment orders to the
applicants as well as other candidates, subject to the fulfilment of other eligibility
conditions in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and as per the terms of the
advertisement. Clause (ii) of the aforesaid directions makes it clear that appointment
orders are to be issued subject to fulfilment of the eligibility conditions prescribed
under the Recruitment Rules and the terms of the advertisement .
19. Learned Counsel for both the parties submitted that the re-assessment as to
eligibility criteria shall have to be in accordance with qualifications and eligibility
criteria prescribed under the advertisement and the applicable Recruitment Rules. Ms.
Esha Majumdar, learned Counsel for the applicants in case in our hand, much
emphasized that later common order dated 15.7.2026, passed in O.A. Nos. 229/2025
and 231/2025 by Chennai Bench , is to be followed, as it has considered the earlier
order dated 30.4.2026 passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal and there is no
necessity for directing a fresh interview. She further submits since the applicants had
already undergone the interview process, the Committee may assess the eligibility of
the applicants on the basis of the existing record without conducting a re-interview.
20. The Division Bench vide order dated 22.7.2026 in O.A. No. 962/2025, in the case
in our hand, had observed that there appears to be a divergence between the directions
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
9
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
issued by the Principal Bench in O.A. No. 1409/2025 and by the Chennai Bench in
case of O.A. No. 231/2025. Since both the matters pertain to the same recruitment
process and the directions issued therein appear to be at variance on the question—
― whether a fresh interview is required? ‖, the Division Bench referred the issue to be
decided by a Larger Bench. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before us.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANTS
21. Ms. Esha Mazumdar and Mr. Setu Niket, learned Counsel for the applicants argued
in support of order passed by the Chennai Bench and their arguments can be
summarised as under-
(i) Applicants had applied for the post of Scientist ‗D‘ in response to Advertisement
No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2, and they are fully eligible as per terms and conditions of the
advertisement and successfully qualified all stages of the selection process, including
screening test, academic evaluation, document verification and interview. It is not
disputed by the respondents that recruitment process was completed in adherence of
eligibility criteria and procedural norms and thereafter final provisional list of selected
candidates was issued on 15.3.2024 and both the candidates are meritorious.
Respondents, in an arbitrary and illegal manner and in violation of principles of
natural justice, without assigning any valid reason, cancelled the entire recruitment
process on 25.2.2025, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the affected
candidates.
(ii) The academic evaluation had already been conducted by a committee which
comprised senior officers of NIC based on candidates documents. After successful
document verification, candidates were allotted interview schedule. Without notice to
the affected candidates, the cancellation of entire selections process is bad in law and
also in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Applicants are fully
eligible for the post and rules of the game cannot be changed after game has begun.
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
10
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
(iii) Applicants had qualified successfully all stages of selection process and included
in list of provisionally selected candidates and non-eligible candidates can be weeded
out before issuing offer of appointment.
(iv) In similar cases in OA No.229/2025 and OA No.231/2025, Chennai Bench of this
Tribunal, after considering the Common Order dt.30.04.2026 in O.A. No.1409 of 2025
and O.A. No.1127/2025 passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, issued a
common order dated 15.07.2026. Hence the later Common Order dated 15.7.2026
passed by Chennai Bench shall prevail and there is no necessity for directing a fresh
interview since the applicants had already undergone the interview process and
accordingly the Committee may reassess the eligibility of the applicants on the basis
of existing record without conducting a re-interview.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS/INTERVENORS
22. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended and their arguments can be
summarized as under:
(i) The respondent no. 2 issued advertisement no. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 for the posts of
Scientist F, E, D & C and selection process was conducted in terms of the
advertisement. Results for the post of Scientist F & E were declared on 7.3.2024 and
offer of appointment were issued to the selected candidates on 15.3.2024 and no
complaint has been received against the selection for the posts of Scientist F and E.
(ii) NIELIT conducted online written exam for 12 posts of Scientist D and 141 posts of
Scientist-C during 18.3.2023 to 21.3.2023. Thereafter, based on the screening test
results, NIELIT, conducted evaluation of academic records and published the list of
shortlisted candidates for next stage of assessment for post of Scientist D and C for
interview. The NIELIT, received complaints from candidates and decision was taken
to re-conduct the academic evaluation and a revised list of the shortlisted candidates
for interview was published on recruitment portal on 29.12.2023.
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
11
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
(iii) Based on the revised list of shortlisted candidates, the list was published for
interview on the recruitment portal on 29.12.2023. Recruitment agency conducted
documents verification and interview of the shortlisted candidates from 18.1.2024 to
20.1.2024. Thereafter, the list of provisionally selected candidates for the 12 posts of
Scientist D and 141 posts of Scientist C was published by NIELIT on 15.3.2024. On
receipt of complaints from non-selected candidates, physical dossiers were received on
17.5.2024 and it was seen that more than 65% shortlisted candidates do not fulfill the
qualitative requirements for the posts of Scientist-D and Scientist C. The respondents
passed order on 25.2.2025, to cancel the recruitment process for posts of Scientist ‗D‘
and Scientist ‗C‘ under the advertisement, to ensure that non-eligible candidates are
not appointed at the expense of eligible candidates.
iv) The recruitment process for 12 posts of Scientist ‗D‘ and 141 posts of Scientist ‗C‘
have been conducted in strict adherence to the established eligibility criteria and
procedural norms, with no deviation from the law or regulations. There were
discrepancies in dossiers of selected candidates for 12 posts for Scientist ‗D‘. The
dossiers of the provisionally selected candidates for the post of Scientist ‗C‘ and ‗D‘,
were re-evaluated by newly constituted Academic Evaluation Committee ( in short
AEC ) and the AEC came to conclusion that the provisionally selected candidates did
not have the requisite qualifications and the substantial number of candidates in the
select list and reserve list may not be fulfilling the aforementioned qualitative
requirement and conducting re-evaluation of the academic records may lead to a
substantial change in the provisional list. Hence it was decided to cancel the
recruitment process for the 12 posts of Scientist ‗D‘ and 141 posts of Scientist ‗C‘.
23. Mr. Hanu Bhasker, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel
appearing for respondents/Interveners, representing respondents in O.A. No.
1127/2025 (Delhi), and reiterated submissions made by learned counsel for
respondents and supported the decisions by the Principal Bench and emphasised that
direction to re-interview shall afford an opportunity to the affected candidates.
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
12
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
24. Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for interveners/applicants
in O.A. No. 1127/2025 (Delhi) and Mr. Krishna Kumar M. and Giritharan R.,
applicants - Party-in-person and applicants in O.A. NO. 229/2025 and 231/2025
(Chennai) supported the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicants, so also much emphasised and supported the decision by Chennai Bench
that in light of later decision of equal strength by coordinate Chennai Bench in
identical case in O.A. No. 229/2025 and 231/2025 passed order dt 15.7.2026, taking
into consideration the earlier order dated 30.4.2026 in O.A. No. 1127/2025 and
1409/2025 passed by Principal Bench. The Chennai Bench decisions in O.A. No. 229
and 231 of 2025 lays down the correct law which is binding on the respondents.
Further contended that respondents be directed to complete the recruitment process
without re-interview and issue appointment orders subject to the fulfillment of the
other eligibility conditions in accordance with Recruitment Rules and terms of the
advertisement in light of decision by Chennai Bench in OA No. 229/2025 and
231/2025.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
25. We have bestowed our anxious considerations on the rival contentions of the
counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material placed on record as well
as considered the precedents.
26. Essentially , the question here is whether the criteria on the basis of which selection
was made could be made the legal basis for selection and appointment of posts in
question or a fresh interview is required subject to the fulfillment of other eligibility
conditions in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and as per the terms of the
Advertisement notified.
27. To appreciate the controversy, it is necessitous to refer the Advertisement No.
NIELIT/NIC/2022/2, as to eligibility criteria and the selection process Clause 2.1, 5
& 5.2 being relevant for present purpose are reproduced in below:—
― 2 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
13
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
2.1. ESSENTIAL EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION, EXPERIENCE
etc.
a) EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
(For Scientist-C, Scientist-D, Scientist-E and Scientist-F)
Bachelor Degree in Engineering OR Bachelor Degree in Technology
(Bachelor in Engineering or Bachelor in Technology) OR Department of
Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Course B-Level OR
Associate member of Institute of Engineers OR Graduate Institute of
Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers OR Master's Degree in
Science (MSc) OR Master Degree in Computer Application OR Master's
Degree in Engineering OR Technology (ME or M-Tech) OR Master's
Degree in Philosophy (MPhil) in the field as mentioned below: -
Field (Single or in combination): Physics, Applied Physics, Electronics,
Electronics and Communication, Electronics and Telecommunication,
Radio Physics and Electronics, Chemistry, Applied Chemistry,
Materials Science, Environmental Science, Computer Sciences,
Computer Science and Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer,
Communication, Computer and Networking Security, Computer
Application, Software Engineering, Software System, Information
Technology, Information Technology Management, Informatics,
Computer Management, Cyber Law, Bio-informatics, Remote Sensing,
Geographical Information Systems (GIS), Geography, Mathematics,
Applied Mathematics, Operations Research, Total Quality
Management, Statistics, Computational Linguistics, Information
Science, Information Science and Engineering, Electrical, Mechanical,
Civil, Production, Industrial Electronics, Instrumentation, Electronics
and Instrumentation, Power Electronics, Design.
b) MINIMUM RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Post No. of years of
Experience
Description
Scientist-C 4 years In Research and or development in
Industrial and Academic Institutions or
Science and technology organizations or in
both
Scientist-D 8 years
Scientist-E 12 years
[Refer Corrigendum to Detailed
Advertisement in the web portal
https://www.calicut.nielit.in/nic21/ under
Point 1 of Application process]
Scientist-F i) 18 years Research or Development in Industrial and
Academic institutions or Science and Technology
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
14
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
organizations or in both
ii) 05 years‘ experience of evolving, managing and directing
major Programmes under any branch of Science
iii) Published research work of high standard
Note 1: For Candidates having Master Degree in Engineering or Master
Degree in Technology or Master Degree in Philosophy, two years
relaxation in above experience shall be applicable for all posts.
Note 2: After acquiring essential qualification mentioned above, the
candidate must have relevant experience as mentioned in the above
table in one or more areas in Research or Development in integration
and implementation of Information Technology Solution or Testing or
Quality Control or Capacity Development in the areas of e-Governance
or Information Technology or Computer Science or Cyber Security or
Communication including Data Communications or Network and
Software Engineering or Cyber Law.
Desirable: Doctorate (PhD) in Science or Engineering or Information
Communication Technology.
5. SELECTION PROCESS
A) For Post of Scientist-C and Scientist-D
The Direct recruitment to the posts of Scientist C and Scientist D
would be done through a three-stage process i.e. Screening Test,
Evaluation of the academic records followed by personal
interaction / interview .
All eligible candidates for the posts of Scientist -C and Scientist -D who
have successfully submitted the online application for the posts, along
with required fee & screened in, shall be called for a Screening Test.
Based on the results of screening test and evaluation of the academic
records, he/she will be called for personal interaction/interview.
The screening test will be of qualifying nature and would comprise of
Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQ) on Reasoning, Basic Mathematics,
English, Aptitude, Attitude and Leadership Quality. Scheme of
screening test shall be Objective type and will be in Online mode.
Every question will carry 1(one) mark.
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
15
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
The screening test would consist of 150 nos of Multiple-Choice
Questions (MCQ) to be answered in a maximum time of three
hours. The medium of screening test shall be in English only.
Candidates qualifying the screening test with minimum 60% of marks,
would only be considered eligible to fill up the second phase (main
application form) for the posts of Scientist 'C' and Scientist 'D'. In case
sufficient number of Candidates in OBC, SC, ST and PWD categories
are not available with minimum 60% marks in the screening test, then
qualifying marks could be relaxed to 50% and 40% for OBC and
SC/ST/PWD categories respectively.
The list of candidates qualifying the screening test would, however,
be restricted to the ratio of 1:6 (i.e. Six candidates per post) in the
order of merit, in each category (UR/SC/ST/OBC/EWS/PWD) to
qualify the first stage.
The applications qualifying the first phase i.e Screening Test would
be evaluated by an evaluation committee and marks only would be
awarded for various parameters (The details of various parameters
and weightage of marks are indicated in Annexure I and Annexure
II)
A merit list of short-listed candidates would be drawn based on the
marks obtained out of 120 marks (excluding 30 marks for
interview) and candidates in the ratio of 1:3 would be called for
personal interaction/interview i.e. for each post, three candidates
would be called for interview in their order of merit.
Final merit list would be prepared based on the marks obtained out
of a maximum of 150 marks, i.e. marks obtained in the Evaluation
process (max 120 marks) and in the Interview (max 30 marks)
would be added to arrive at the final score.
5.2 VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS :
Verification of requisite documents will be done prior to the
interview. Candidate will be interviewed only after confirming all
the eligibility requirements and production of all relevant original
documents for verification.
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
16
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
Mere fulfilling of requirement as laid down in the advertisement
does not qualify a candidate to be called for personal
interaction/interview .‖
[Emphasis Supplied]
28. As evident from the selection process, envisaged for post of Scientist C and
Scientist D, the direct recruitment to the post of Scientist C and Scientist D was carried
out in a three stage process i.e. (i) Screening test (ii) Evaluation of the Academic
records followed by (iii) interview.
29. All eligible candidates for the posts who have successfully submitted the Online
application for the posts along with required fee and screened-Online were called by
NIELIT for a Screening Test, written examination during 18.3.2023 to 21.3.2023.
30. Thereafter, based on the results of the online written examination/screening test
and evaluation of the academic records of the candidates were conducted by NIELIT.
NIELIT, after conducting evaluation of academic records, published the list of
shortlisted candidates for the next stage of assessment for the posts in question to
appear for personal interview.
31. The fact of the matter , on completion of two stages of selection process i.e.
Screening test / online written Exam held during the period from 18.3.2023 to
21.3.2023. Based on the results of said online written examination, NIELIT conducted
evaluation of academic records and published the list of shortlisted candidates for next
stage of selection of personal interview. Now at this stage , complaints were received,
recruitment agency, re-conducted the academic evaluation awarding marks on various
parameters based on marks out of 120 marks and a revised list of shortlisted candidates
for interview was published on the portal on 29.12.2023 .
32. Recruiting Agency, proceeded in terms of selection process in advertisement and
conducted document verification and interview of short-listed candidates during
18.1.2024 to 20.1.2024 and published the list of provisionally selected candidates for
the posts in question and published on 15.3.2024 . The issuance of offer of appointment
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
17
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
to the candidates/applicants, to be done on receipt of physical copies of dossiers of the
candidates from the recruiting agency and its scrutiny.
33. The physical dossiers were received from recruiting agency on 17.5.2024 and were
scrutinized and it was observed that many of the provisional merit list as well as in
reserve panel were not fulfilling the eligibility criteria and do not fulfil the qualitative
requirement .
34. Respondents have decided vide impugned order dated 25.2.2025, the cancellation
of recruitment for the posts of Scientist C and Scientist D against the Advertisement
No.NIELIT/NIC/2022/2.
35. Admittedly , the recruitment process has been conducted in strict adherence to the
established eligibility criteria and procedural norms with no deviation from terms of
the advertisement; and indisputedly, no fault attributed to the applicants or any
candidates. But at the same time decision taken vide impugned order dt. 25.2.2025 to
cancel the entire recruitment for 12 posts of Scientist-D and 141 posts of Scientist-C
against recruitment advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 in NIC, Ministry of
Electronics and Information Technology, without assigning any reasons.
36. We are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any specific finding
supported by any concrete material that widespread infirmities have undermined the
selection process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out
the beneficiaries of selection process or the other irregularities, if any. We find that
respondents vide impugned order dt. 25.2.2025, cancelled the entire recruitment for
posts in question, by applying a unilateral arbitrarily standard to cancel the selection in
its entirety, illegally and arbitrarily depriving the applicants. Applicants had not
committed any illegality or irregularities in the entire selection process. The reason
appears to be mismatch of physical copies of dossiers of candidates received on
25.3.2024 and electronic mode from the recruiting agency and now physical dossiers
received from the recruiting agency on 17.5.2024 and many shortlisted candidates do
not fulfill eligibility criteria for the posts advertised. We are of the firm view that this
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
18
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
cannot be a reason for cancellation of the entire selection process in which the
applicants were subjected to the selection process including the personal
interaction/interview and respondents are liable to complete the selection process,
without conducting re-interview of the applicants, as respondents have not pointed out
any irregularity committed by the applicants in interview and it is not a case of
respondents that provisional select list in which the applicants are declared successful
was cancelled due to the fault of the applicants or any fault by those who actually
conducted interview.
37. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also endorsed the similar view in case of Union of
India and others versus Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu and another, reported in
(2003) 7 SCC 285. Their Lordships were seisin with cancellation of the selection
process without any grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of written
exam either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them repelling the
plea that as person in the select list has no vested right to get appointed and finding the
cancellation of entire selection arbitrary and unreasonable. The Relevant paragraphs
no 6 and 7 for ready reference reads as :—
“6. ……In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or
categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material
that widespread infirmities of all pervasive nature, which could be
really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or
as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or
other of irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any
justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates
whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any
one or other reasons. Applying an unilaterally rigid and arbitrary
standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and
positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no
infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total
disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by
irrelevancies, giving a complete go bye to contextual considerations
throwing to winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than
what was strictly and reasonably required to meet the situation. In
short, the Competent Authority completely misdirected itself in taking
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
19
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire
selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual
situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of
what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be
irrational.
7. For all the reasons stated above, we could not find any infirmity
whatsoever in the judgment of the High Court which adopted a
practical, pragmatic, rational and realistic solution to the problem. The
appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. The interim order
earlier granted thus automatically stands revoked. The appointments
shall be made within 60 days from this day without any further delay.
No costs."
[Emphasis Supplied]
38. In District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential
School Society, Vizianagaram and another versus M. Tripura Sundari Devi,
reported in (1990) 3 SCC 655 . Relevant paras 4 and 6 reads as under:-
―4. It has been brought to our notice during the course of the arguments
that the original selection was made by mistake on the presumption that
the respondent had satisfied the qualification requirements as stated in
the advertisement, without scruitinising the certificates copies of which
were sent with her application. The Selection Committee presumed that
all those who had applied in response to the advertisement must have
had the requisite qualifications needed for the posts. However, the order
appointing the respondent had made it clear that the respondent should
come along with the original certificates. When the respondent
approached the appellants with the originals of the certificates which
were scrutinized, it was found that in fact she was short of the
qualifications. It is in these circumstances, that she was not allowed to
join the service. It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellants had
selected the respondent with the knowledge that she was under
qualified. Accordingly to us, there is a good deal of force in this
contention. It is common knowledge that sometimes either by mistake
or otherwise the notes put up before the Selection Committee contain
erroneous data prepared by the office, and sometime the Selection
Committee proceeds on the basis that all those who appear before it, are
otherwise qualified. However, the second stage at which the documents
are scrutinized is when the higher authorities go through them at the
time the candidate concerned approaches them for resuming (s/c
assuming) duties along with the original certificates. It is at that stage
that the mistake was discovered in the present case and the respondent
was not permitted to resume her duties. We see nothing wrong in this
action.
6. It must further be realised by all concerned that when an
advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment
is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the
appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
20
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the
appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because
they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.
It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior
qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the
qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the
perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the
Tribunal lost sight of this fact. ”
[Emphasis Supplied]
39. The Division Bench of Principal Bench of the Tribunal, in similar case Kranti
Gaurav & others and Devender Singh & others (supra) , after scanning the anatomy
of terms and conditions of advertisement and Recruitment Rules for the posts in
question. So also placed reliance on Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court
in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors versus Rajasthan High Court & Ors, (2025) 2 SCC 1
and held as under :—
―8.8.2 The criteria prescribed for assessment were well within the
knowledge and domain of the candidates. The mode, manner, and
scheme of the selection process were clearly set out in the
advertisement and were duly adhered to during the conduct of the
recruitment process.
8.8.3 Being fully conscious of the terms and conditions of the
advertisement, which are binding on both parties, the candidates
participated in the selection process, and the same was conducted in
accordance with the stipulated procedure.
8.8.4 The unsuccessful candidates did not, at any stage, challenge the
credibility or constitution of the evaluation committee. The credibility
of such committees is ordinarily questioned only where there is
demonstrable lack of independence, procedural irregularity, or other
systemic infirmity, none of which has been established in the present
case.
8.8.5 It cannot be contended by the respondents that, merely on the
basis of representations received, the principle of equality of
opportunity in matters of public employment stands diluted or defeated.
Acceptance of such a proposition would render every recruitment
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
21
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
process vulnerable at each stage of selection and would undermine the
sanctity of a structured and competitive selection mechanism.
8.8.6 The cancellation of the entire selection process on the basis of
unsubstantiated allegations of ill intent, wrongdoing, or deceit, without
any conclusive findings, adversely impacts the credibility of the
institution as well as the expert evaluation committees comprising
senior scientists.
8.8.7 The real grievance, if any, emanates from candidates who, despite
possessing comparable or even better qualifications, remained
unsuccessful at the academic evaluation stage under clause (f) of the
advertisement, from where the present controversy has originated. 8.8.8
It is an admitted position that the recruitment authority had, prior to
commencement of the selection process, devised a structured scheme
with defined benchmarks at each stage. However, these benchmarks are
now being retrospectively revisited and re-evaluated after completion of
the process, which is impermissible in law, as held in K. Manjusree v.
State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512.
8.8.9 The arbitrariness of the impugned action is further manifest from
the fact that under the same Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2
dated 20.10.2022, the respondents have selectively cancelled the
recruitment process for Scientist ‗C‘ and Scientist ‗D‘ while permitting
appointments and joining for Scientist ‗E‘ and Scientist ‗F‘. Such
selective cancellation under a common recruitment process is ex facie
discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
X x x
8.20 The applicants, on their part, have placed on record a detailed chart
to demonstrate that they fulfill all the prescribed eligibility conditions.
According to them, upon their inclusion in the provisional select list, a
legitimate expectation arose for issuance of appointment orders, and the
subsequent cancellation of the entire recruitment process has resulted in
denial of such accrued expectation. The respondents, in their additional
affidavit dated 09.02.2026, have further categorized candidates into
those marked in green (approximately onethird, considered potentially
eligible) and those marked in red (remaining two-thirds, considered
ineligible). It is also noted that the AEC, in its minutes dated
22.11.2024, had suggested a case-by-case evaluation approach. In these
circumstances, it would be appropriate that candidates identified as
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
22
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
eligible (green category) be considered for issuance of appointment
orders, subject to fulfillment of other conditions of eligibility, while in
respect of the remaining candidates, a fresh assessment of their cases be
undertaken by an independent committee of NIC, different from the
earlier evaluation bodies, strictly in accordance with the norms
prescribed under the original advertisement. Such reconsideration must
be guided by the Recruitment Rules, ensuring that ―relevant
experience‖ is assessed holistically and not reduced solely to pay-level
parameters such as Pay Level–7 or Pay Level–10.
9. CONCLUSION
9.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the present Original Applications
are disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The partial cancellation of the recruitment process pertaining to the
posts of Scientist-C and Scientist-D is arbitrary, discriminatory, and an
impermissible exercise of power, having been effected after the
declaration of provisional results. Accordingly, the impugned action is
set aside and declared null and void.
(ii) The applicants indicated in green in the additional affidavit dated
09.02.2026 shall be segregated, and offer(s) of appointment shall be
issued to them, subject to fulfillment of other eligibility conditions,
within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. Further, any other applicants who are found to fulfill
the prescribed eligibility criteria in accordance with the Recruitment
Rules and the terms of the advertisement shall also be extended offer(s)
of appointment on the same terms.
(iii) In respect of the remaining candidates in the provisional select list
who were shortlisted after the interview, their cases shall be
reconsidered. They shall be re-interviewed and their eligibility shall be
re-assessed afresh by an independent committee to be constituted by
NIC, distinct from the earlier Evaluation Committees, strictly in
accordance with the norms prescribed under the impugned
advertisement. The Independent Committee shall comprise the
following members:
Retired Hon‘ble Judge of a High Court – Chairperson
Head of Institution / Nominee of NIC
Five senior members from NIC, excluding those who were
part of the earlier Evaluation Committee; alternatively, experts
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
23
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
may be drawn from reputed public or private institutions,
universities, or organizations in the relevant field.
The honorarium, expenses, venue, and schedule of interviews
shall be fixed in consultation with the Chairperson (Retired
Hon‘ble High Court Judge) by the Head of Institution/NIC.
NIELIT shall extend all necessary assistance to ensure a fair,
transparent, and efficient conduct of the exercise.
(iv) This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this
order.
(v) Upon finalisation of the selection list, appointment offers
shall be issued to the selected candidates who fulfill all other
eligibility conditions within one month thereafter.‖
[Emphasis Supplied]
40. The later decision passed by Chennai Bench dt.15.7.2026 in case of Krishna
Kumar M and Giritharan R (supra) by the coordinate Bench of co-equal strength,
considered the earlier decision dated 30.4.2026 in case of Kranti Gurav and Devender
Singh (supra) by Principal Bench. The later decision in case of Krishna Kumar M
and Giritharan R (supra) considered the issue whether respondents were justified in
cancelling the recruitment process for the post of Scientist C and D after completion of
entire selection process, including the interview, and after publication of the
provisional select list? The Chennai Bench in its decision, referred to earlier decision
in similar case in Kranti Gurav and in Devender Singh (supra) passed by Principal
Bench and also considered the fact of the matter, that cancellation of selection
particularly in absence of any allegation of fraud, and malpractice or misconduct
attributable to the selected candidates and such cancellation is arbitrary, unreasonable
and violative of principles of fairness governing public employment. The later
decision, considered a catena of judicial pronouncements on cancellation of a
recruitment process after completion of the selection process. The Relevant paras 27 of
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
24
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
common order dated 15.7.2026 in case Krishna Kumar and Giritharan R (supra)
passed by Chennai Bench, Bench Chennai reads as :-
― 27. In the above circumstance, and on the basis of the Principal Bench
cited supra, both the Original Applications are disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The partial cancellation of the recruitment process pertaining to
the post of Scientist-C and Scientist-D is arbitrary,
discriminatory and an impermissible exercise of power, having
been effected after the declaration of provisional results.
Accordingly, the impugned cancellation order dated 25.02.2025
is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to compete the recruitment
process and issue appointment orders to the applicants as
well as other candidates, subject to the fulfillment of other
eligibility conditions in accordance with the Recruitment
Rules and as per terms of the Advertisement notified.
(iii) Pending MAs in the two OAs are all closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.‖
[Emphasis Supplied]
41. Ms. Esha Majumdar, learned counsel for the applicants vehemently submitted that
clause (ii) of later decision in case of Krishna Kumar and Giritharan R (supra) ,
passed by the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal, after considering the earlier decision of
this Tribunal dated 30.4.2026 in case of Kranti Gurav and Devender Singh (supra)
makes it clear that appointment orders are to be issued subject to fulfillment of the
eligibility conditions prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and the terms of
advertisement.
42. Ms. Majumdar also vociferously canvassed that there is no necessity for directing a
fresh interview since the applicants had already undergone the interview process and
the Committee may re-assess the eligibility of the applicants on the basis of the
existing record without conducting a re-interview as applicants fall in category of
candidates included in the provisional select list, after the interview for 12 posts of
Scientist D.
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
25
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
43. Learned counsel for the applicants also argued that no show cause notice or
opportunity of hearing was given before cancellation of entire provisional select list for
12 posts of Scientist D. Since the selection was not vitiated on part of candidates in
any manner, cancellation of the entire selection is bad in law. The applicants have not
committed any illegality or irregularities.
44. Mr. S.M. Arif and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and Mr. Hanu
Bhaskar, Sr. CGSC appearing for respondents/intervenors also contended and
reiterated stand taken in the counter-reply that recruitment process for Scientist-C and
D has been conducted in strict adherence to the established criteria and procedural
norms in accordance with terms of advertisement. Dossiers of candidates received
from the recruitment agency on 17.5.2024 after list of provisionally selected
candidates for 12 post of Scientist-D and 141 post of Scientist C was published on
15.3.2024 and issuance of offer of appointment to be done after receipt of physical
copies of dossiers and its scrutiny. On scrutiny of candidates dossiers more than 65%
short-listed candidates did not fulfill qualitative requirement and did not fulfill
eligibility. Therefore it was decided to cancel the entire recruitment process for 12
posts of Scientist D and 141 posts of Scientist-C against the recruitment advertisement
no. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 to ensure that non-eligible candidates are not appointed.
45. Indisputedly , the respondents have not pointed out any irregularity committed by
the applicants or any of the candidates in the provisional select list, who were
shortlisted after the interview. It is not the case of the respondents that the provisional
select list for Scientist C or Scientist D was declared successful was cancelled due to
fault of the applicants or the participating candidates. The reason mentioned by
respondents for cancellation of entire selection process based on eligibility not
assessed properly in accordance with terms of advertisement and recruitment rules
before issuance of offer of appointment.
46. We are of the view that in this case fault lies on the respondents to scrutinise the
candidates dossier of short-listed candidates to re-assess eligibility requirements in
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
26
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
terms of recruitment rules and terms of advertisement. This cannot be a reason for
subjecting the applicants to re-interview . The applicants have already cleared the
interview and cannot be made to face again the interview.
47. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also endorsed similar view in case of Rajesh P.U.
(supra) and in view of the settled legal position, we are of the considered view that the
later decision in case of Krishna Kumar and Giritharan (supra) by Chennai Bench of
this Tribunal already taken into consideration earlier decision of P.B. in OA
No.1127/2025 and OA No.1409/2025 (supra) and Chennai Bench decision lays down
the law correctly and is in accordance with the terms and conditions of advertisement
& Recruitment Rules and deserves our approval.
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED
48. For the aforesaid reasons, we record our conclusion as under :-
(I) The decision rendered in Kranti Gaurav Versus UOI and Ors. and Devender
Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors . (supra) insofar as in terms of clause (iii) of
paragraph 9.1., the applicants are required to be re-interviewed by independent
committee headed by a retired Hon'ble Judge of a High Court, does not lay down
the law correctly.
(II) The later decision dated 15.07.2026 in case of Krishna Kumar M and
Giritharan R (supra) by Chennai Bench considering judicial pronouncements
held that cancellation of a recruitment process after completion of selection process
and publication of provisional select list and in absence of any allegation of fraud,
malpractice or misconduct attributable to the selected candidates is arbitrary,
unreasonable and violative of principles of fairness governing public recruitment,
wherein the clause (ii) makes it clear that appointment orders are to be issued
subject to fulfilment of the eligibility conditions prescribed under
the
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A
27
OA No. 962/2025 with OA No.458/2026
Recruitment Rules and the terms of the advertisement, without a fresh interview,
lays down the correct law.
(III) We are of the view that the direction given in later decision in case of Krishna
Kumar M. (Supra) dated 15.07.2026 by Chennai Bench to proceed with the
selection without fresh interview, in case of remaining candidates in provisional
select list in case in hand, and to complete the recruitment process and issue
appointment orders to the applicants as well as other candidates subject to the
fulfillment of other eligibility conditions in accordance with the Recruitment Rules
and as per the terms of advertisement notified, deserves our approval
49. The reference is disposed of in above indicated terms.
50. Let the Original Applications be now laid before the Division Bench for hearing as
per Roster.
51. Reference is answered accordingly.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Ajay Pratap Singh) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Member (J) Chairman
/uma/
UMA
2026.10.
UM
16
16:33:10
+05'30'
A