A challenge to a cancelled selection result is infructuous absent challenge to its replacement.

The applicant, an unreserved-category Postman, challenged the revised result dated 11 August 2016 for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, alleging that reserved-category candidates had been selected against unreserved vacancies despite his higher score.

The respondents stated that, following complaints about marks, the answer sheets were re-examined and errors in entering marks were corrected; a further revised result was issued on 14 October 2016, selecting two unreserved-category candidates with scores higher than the applicant’s and assigning the reserved-category candidates to their respective reserved vacancies.

The applicant had filed the OA on 13 October 2016 and did not amend it to challenge the further revised result.

Whether the applicant’s challenge to the revised result dated 11 August 2016 survived after that result was superseded by the further revised result dated 14 October 2016.

Whether the Tribunal could examine the legality of the final select list when the applicant had not challenged the 14 October 2016 result by amending the OA.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that an applicant must specifically challenge the operative administrative decision for the legality of that decision to be examined in the proceeding.

It also held that a new challenge cannot be introduced through a rejoinder; where a material decision is issued after the OA is filed, the applicant must seek appropriate amendment rather than rely on allegations raised only in the rejoinder.

The 14 October 2016 result superseded the result challenged in the OA.

Under that result, the reserved-category candidates were shown against their respective reserved vacancies, while the two unreserved-category candidates selected had scored 112 and 110 marks, compared with the applicant’s 108.

Because the applicant neither withdrew the OA nor amended it to challenge the later result, the Tribunal held that the operative select list’s legality was not properly before it.

The applicant’s objections to the later revision, raised in the rejoinder, could not cure that omission.

The OA was dismissed with no order as to costs.