A candidate cannot change the declared social category after publication of the selection list.

The applicants were ex-servicemen who applied for direct recruitment to 253 posts of Police Constable pursuant to the notification dated 26 November 2022. They belonged to the Hindu-Vanniar community and claimed eligibility under the applicable OBC/MBC classification in Puducherry. Due to an asserted inadvertent error, they applied under the wrong community category—principally OBC instead of MBC, with the categorisation reversed in one case—while seeking appointment under the Ex-Servicemen quota.

The applicants qualified in the physical and written examinations and were provisionally included in the select list under the category declared in their applications. At certificate verification, they produced community certificates inconsistent with the category under which they had applied and been provisionally selected. They were consequently not permitted to proceed to medical examination. They sought permission to change their community category and to be considered for appointment under the appropriate MBC/OBC Ex-Servicemen category.

The Tribunal permitted the applicants in OAs 515/2023 and 516/2023 to participate in the medical examination during the proceedings, with their results kept in sealed cover. The applicants relied on decisions permitting correction of inadvertent errors, whereas the respondents relied on the Tribunal’s decision in Johnsimary v. Government of Puducherry , subsequently upheld by the Madras High Court.

Whether the applicants could be permitted, after completion of the selection process and publication of the provisional select list, to change the community category declared in their recruitment applications from OBC to MBC, or vice versa, for consideration under the Ex-Servicemen quota

Whether the applicants’ asserted inadvertent mistake in declaring their social category was sufficiently trivial to justify alteration of their candidature without undermining the recruitment process

Whether the principles governing horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen permitted such a change notwithstanding the separate vertical reservations for OBC and MBC candidates

The Tribunal applied the distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations explained by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India , under which reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs are vertical, whereas reservations for categories such as physically handicapped persons—and, by analogy, Ex-Servicemen—operate horizontally across vertical categories.

It held that a community declaration in a recruitment application is material and binding on both the candidate and the recruiting authority, and that a candidate cannot ordinarily migrate from one social category to another after completion of the selection process.

The Tribunal distinguished cases involving minor procedural or clerical errors, including Vishnu Bargavi S. v. Director, NEET Exam , National Institute of Fashion Technology v. Jayya Vishrant , L. Vikram v. Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare , and Ponnumani M. v. Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board , because those cases concerned different factual and legal contexts.

It followed the reasoning in Johnsimary v. Government of Puducherry , where a change between OBC and MBC after the selection process was held impermissible and was affirmed by the Madras High Court.

The Tribunal held that the applicants’ error did not concern a merely formal or clerical omission but related to their social category, which affected the allocation of vacancies under separate vertical reservation categories.

The recruitment notification expressly provided an opportunity to correct errors in the online application during the period from 26 November 2022 to 27 December 2022, but the applicants did not use that facility. Their provisional selection was thereafter published under the categories declared in their applications. Permitting them to change categories after publication of the select list would allow migration between separately reserved OBC and MBC categories and could compromise the transparency and integrity of the selection process.

Although Ex-Servicemen reservation operates horizontally, the applicants’ requested change still concerned the underlying vertical community category in which their horizontal reservation would be adjusted. The horizontal nature of the Ex-Servicemen quota therefore did not authorise alteration of the community declaration or eliminate the prejudice that could be caused to candidates competing under the OBC and MBC categories.

The Tribunal also noted that some applicants failed to produce the community certificate corresponding to the category under which they had been provisionally selected.

All four Original Applications were dismissed as devoid of merit, the connected Miscellaneous Applications were closed, and there was no order as to costs.