Administrative action cancelling candidature for non-joining must be reasoned and consider genuine medical exigencies.

The applicant was selected for the post of Head Constable (AWO/TPO) in Delhi Police via the 2013 recruitment process, with results declared on 16.05.2016

On 05.07.2016, the applicant sought an extension of joining time supported by medical documents, citing the serious illness (cancer) and major surgery of his father-in-law

The respondents did not initially respond but later issued a Show Cause Notice on 16.08.2016, proposing cancellation of his candidature on the grounds that his reason was unsatisfactory and showed a lack of interest

Despite the applicant’s reply dated 19.08.2016 expressing immediate willingness to join and a personal hearing on 30.08.2016, the respondents cancelled his candidature via an order dated 01.09.2016

1. Whether the cancellation of the applicant’s candidature on the ground of failure to join basic training was legally sustainable and reflected due application of mind

2. Whether the respondents were bound to consider the DoP&T guidelines regarding extension of joining time for fresh recruits

The Tribunal applied the principles of administrative law requiring orders with civil consequences to be reasoned and non-arbitrary

It relied on the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) Office Memorandum dated 09.08.1995, which permits an extension of joining time for fresh recruits for up to six months upon request

administrative discipline must be balanced against genuine, compelling personal circumstances beyond a candidate's control

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s request for extension was based on a genuine medical exigency (cancer treatment of a family member) and was not frivolous or mala fide

The respondents failed to verify or fairly consider the medical documents provided and instead remained silent for over a month before issuing a Show Cause Notice

The Tribunal noted that the impugned cancellation order was "non-speaking" and mechanical, as it merely used the phrase "not satisfactory" without assigning specific reasons for rejecting the applicant's explanation

The Tribunal further observed that while Standing Order No. 223 makes training mandatory, it cannot be applied so rigidly as to defeat the doctrine of fairness, especially when the applicant repeatedly affirmed his willingness to join and the extension sought fell within the six-month window permitted by DoP&T guidelines

It held that the cancellation was arbitrary and violative of natural justice

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant for appointment in light of the DoP&T O.M. dated 09.08.1995. If found eligible, the applicant is to be appointed with seniority and pay fixed on a notional basis, without back wages, to be completed within eight weeks