A PwBD sub-category cannot be changed after application submission contrary to advertisement terms.

The applicant applied for recruitment to the post of Junior Basic Teacher under Advertisement No. 06/2023 dated 16 January 2024, selecting the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) “Others” category.

She was issued an admit card, permitted to use a scribe on the basis of a medical recommendation, appeared in the examination, and secured 82.25 marks.

She was thereafter shortlisted for document verification.

During verification, the respondents found that her disability certificate recorded Cerebral Palsy, which they classified under the PwBD (Orthopaedic Handicapped/“OH”) category, whereas she had applied under PwBD (Others).

The applicant claimed that she had secured sufficient merit, including fourth rank in the OH category, and sought consideration under that category through a representation dated 3 December 2025.

The respondents rejected the claim on the grounds that the online application category could not be altered after final submission and that no vacancy was available under the PwBD (OH) category.

The applicant challenged this position under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the applicant, having applied under the PwBD (Others) category, could subsequently be considered under the PwBD (OH) category on the basis of her Cerebral Palsy disability certificate.

Whether the applicant acquired any enforceable right to appointment merely because she was issued an admit card, permitted to take the examination, secured 82.25 marks, and was shortlisted for document verification.

Whether the respondents were required to consider the applicant’s representation for appointment against the PwBD (OH) vacancies.

The Tribunal applied the terms of the recruitment advertisement and the Online Application Procedure, which required candidates to verify their particulars before final submission and prohibited changes thereafter.

It further applied the express condition that submission of an application, issuance of an admit card, participation in the examination, or document scrutiny did not confer any right to appointment, since candidature remained provisional and subject to eligibility verification.

Relying on the DoPT notification dated 15 January 2018, the Tribunal accepted that Cerebral Palsy falls within the locomotor disability/Orthopaedic Handicapped category.

Accordingly, a candidate who selected the PwBD (Others) category could not retrospectively alter the opted category after submission of the application, particularly contrary to the recruitment conditions.

The applicant’s own application showed that she had opted for PwBD (Others), while her disability documents established Cerebral Palsy falling under PwBD (OH).

Since the advertisement and online procedure expressly prohibited post-submission changes, the respondents were entitled to assess her candidature only under the category selected in the application.

Her participation in the examination and shortlisting did not waive the respondents’ right to verify eligibility or create a vested right to appointment, as those stages were expressly provisional.

The Tribunal also noted the respondents’ categorical submission that no vacancy remained available under the PwBD (OH) category.

Consequently, the applicant’s merit and alleged availability of vacancies could not justify consideration under a different category after the application deadline.

The respondents had acted in accordance with the advertisement and application procedure in declining to alter her category.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.