A standby-list candidate has no right to appointment when marks fall below the applicable cutoff.

The applicant, an OBC candidate, applied under Centralised Employment Notice (CEN) No. 01/2014 for several posts, including Technician Grade III.

After obtaining 69.53% in the written examination, he was placed on the standby list and his documents were verified.

He was not selected for Assistant Loco Pilot after failing the aptitude test.

Although some standby candidates were subsequently empanelled, the applicant was not: the respondents stated that his marks were below the 90.62% cutoff applicable to the relevant OBC vacancies.

The panel expired on 30 April 2019 with the applicant still on the standby list.

After his representation seeking appointment was rejected on 12 November 2021, he filed this application seeking to quash that rejection and obtain appointment as Technician Grade III.

1. Whether the applicant, as a standby-list candidate, was entitled to appointment as Technician Grade III under CEN No. 01/2014 despite his marks being below the stated cutoff

2. Whether the respondents violated any applicable rules or guidelines in not empanelling or appointing the applicant

The Tribunal identified no statute, rule, or judicial precedent as the basis for its decision.

It considered the selection terms under CEN No. 01/2014, including the requirement that Technician candidates qualify in the written examination and the use of standby candidates where further vacancies arose.

The decision proceeded on the basis that the applicant had to establish a basis under the applicable selection process for appointment and that no entitlement or procedural violation had been shown.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ account that the applicant’s 69.53% score was below the 90.62% cutoff for the relevant OBC vacancies, while eligible standby candidates were empanelled against subsequent requirements.

It also noted that the panel had expired and that the applicant had not pleaded or established any breach of the selection rules or guidelines.

On that record, the Tribunal found no justification for directing appointment or interfering with the rejection of his representation.

It dismissed the application as devoid of merit, dismissed any pending miscellaneous application, and made no order as to costs (“costs made easy”).