A substantially completed selection will not be disturbed belatedly to rectify an omitted reservation vacancy.

The applicant, a former Indian Navy Petty Officer, applied for the Junior Accountant post (Post Code NE11425) in the SSC Selection Post Phase XIII/2025 examination.

The vacancy requisition first submitted by the Brahmaputra Board showed 11 vacancies and no Ex-Servicemen (ESM) reservation; a revised requisition dated 3 April 2025 increased the total to 14 vacancies but continued to show no ESM vacancy.

Those vacancies were advertised on 2 June 2025, with applications closing on 23 June 2025.

The Board later issued a communication dated 25 July 2025 indicating one ESM vacancy.

The SSC stated that it received that communication only on 24 December 2025, after the examination, and that changing the advertised category at that stage could prejudice candidates who had not applied.

The applicant was not shortlisted for further stages under the post and challenged the omission of ESM reservation and the resulting exclusion.

The Tribunal dismissed the OA.

1. Whether the failure to include an ESM vacancy for Post Code NE11425, despite the Government’s reservation instructions and the Board’s later revised communication, required the recruitment authorities to revise the vacancy position.

2. Whether the Tribunal should intervene in the recruitment process after applications had closed and the examination and subsequent selection process had substantially progressed.

The Tribunal recognised the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 4 October 2012 as mandating 10% horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen in Group ‘C’ posts.

It also applied the principle that recruitment should proceed on the vacancies and categories notified to candidates, and that introducing a new reservation category after the application period has closed and the examination process has commenced may prejudice candidates who relied on the published notice.

No judicial precedents were cited in the judgment.

The Tribunal accepted that the Brahmaputra Board had omitted the ESM reservation and that the later communication indicated one ESM vacancy.

However, it held that the applicant sought intervention after the selection process had substantially progressed and that changing the vacancy structure at that stage could prejudice the many candidates who had competed under the advertised terms.

It therefore found no basis to disturb the process as conducted by the SSC on the vacancies reported by the user department and included in the notification.

It granted the applicant liberty to file a civil suit for damages against the Brahmaputra Board in the competent court; any interim order was vacated, pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and no costs were awarded.