A candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment based solely on inclusion in a merit list.

The petitioner applied for the post of Gram Panchayat Mantri (Class-III) following an advertisement dated December 28, 2010. She was initially recommended for appointment by the Respondent No. 1 (Board) after being found meritorious

During document verification on October 18, 2011, Respondent No. 2 (Panchayat) scrutinized her sports certificate for participation in Hockey at the State Level

It was discovered that the certificate did not meet the criteria specified in Government Resolution (G.R.) dated February 25, 1980, as the petitioner had neither secured a top-three rank nor was part of a winning team

Consequently, the Panchayat cancelled her selection via communication dated May 19, 2012, as the deduction of sports marks pushed her below the cutoff for the SEBC (Female) category

1. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in cancelling the petitioner's selection based on the non-compliance of her sports certificate with G.R. dated February 25, 1980

2. Whether a candidate placed on a merit list possesses an indefeasible right to appointment regardless of eligibility errors discovered post-selection

The court applied the conditions stipulated in Government Resolution (G.R.) dated February 25, 1980, which mandates that to qualify for 5% additional sports marks, a candidate must not only participate in State or National events but also secure the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rank, or be part of a winning team

The court further applied the settled legal principle that a person included in a merit or select list does not have an indefeasible right to be appointed to the post

The court examined the petitioner's Hockey certificate and confirmed it was undisputed that she did not secure a rank nor did her team win the event

Therefore, the Board's initial award of 2.77 additional marks was "ex-facie erroneous"

Analyzing the Board’s affidavit dated September 15, 2025, the court noted that the petitioner’s written test score was 55.50 marks; without the sports incentive, her total remained 55.50, which fell below the SEBC (Female) category cutoff of 56.80

The court reasoned that since the mistake was identified before the actual appointment, the Panchayat acted within its rights to correct the error and ensure only truly meritorious and eligible candidates were appointed

The court ruled that the cancellation of her candidature was legal and valid, as she failed to meet the specific eligibility criteria of G.R. dated February 25, 1980, and her marks were lower than the last appointed candidate in her category

Rule discharged; no order as to costs