A candidate below the selection cut-off has no right to appointment against unfilled vacancies.

The applicant participated in the selection for Forest Guard/Forest Protection Guard posts in District Doda advertised in 1996 but was not selected.

After the High Court directed the competent authority to consider his claim, subject to vacancy and applicable rules, the Board considered his case and rejected it in 2020.

The Board recorded that he had scored 37.74 points, below the 43.81 points obtained by the last selected Open Merit candidate, and stated that no post under the advertisement remained available.

The applicant challenged the rejection, disputing the assessment of his marks and relying on alleged vacancies arising from selected candidates’ non-joining and on earlier litigation concerning the selection records.

Whether the applicant could claim appointment merely because vacancies allegedly remained unfilled after selected candidates did not join, despite scoring below the last selected candidate.

Whether the Board’s rejection of the applicant’s claim was liable to be set aside because the applicant challenged the calculation of his marks and relied on the earlier judgment concerning alleged interpolation in the selection records.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an unfilled vacancy does not, by itself, confer a right to appointment on a candidate who did not meet the selection merit; appointments must follow the applicable selection process and merit position.

It also applied the principle that a direction to consider a claim does not guarantee its acceptance, particularly where the directing court expressly left the merits open.

The Tribunal referred to the High Court’s directions in Soom Nath v. State of J&K & Others, SWP No. 401/2009, and to Bushan Lal and Others v. State of J&K & Others, but held that neither established an independent right to appointment for the applicant.

No specific statutory provision or other precedent was identified as the basis for the merits determination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s score was materially below the last selected Open Merit candidate’s score and that he had produced no evidence that a lower-scoring candidate in the same category had been selected, or that his marks were wrongly calculated or assessed under a different criterion.

It held that alleged vacancies resulting from non-joining could not overcome the applicant’s lower merit, and that the earlier High Court order required consideration—not appointment.

The Board had considered the claim and rejected it on merit; the earlier observations concerning possible interpolation did not displace that assessment or create an entitlement to appointment.

It dismissed the Original Application as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.