Administrative failure to obtain mandatory No Objection Certificates cannot justify scrapping a completed selection process.

In April 2013, the Controllerate of Quality Assurance (CQA) issued an advertisement for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (JE)

The respondents successfully cleared the written examination, interview, and medical examination by September 2014

However, after a long hiatus, they were informed in December 2015 that the recruitment process had been scrapped because the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) failed to obtain a mandatory No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)

The respondents challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which set aside the cancellation, noting that 22 other candidates from the same advertisement had been appointed despite the lack of NOC

The Union of India challenged the CAT’s order, arguing that the post had been reclassified from Group ‘C’ to Group ‘B’ during the recruitment process, making the DoPT NOC mandatory under the 1990 Rules

Central Civil Service (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990, specifically Rule 3(1)(iv) and Rule 3(4)(b), which mandate that vacancies in Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts must be reported to the surplus cell and an NOC obtained before direct recruitment

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, which protects individuals from arbitrary state action when they have successfully navigated a transparent selection process

The principle that a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong (administrative lapse) to the prejudice of innocent third parties

The Court observed that while the post of JE was reclassified as Group ‘B’ during the recruitment process, the vacancies were originally released when the post was Group ‘C’, at which time no NOC was required

The Court reasoned that the duty to obtain the NOC rested entirely with the DGQA and not the candidates; therefore, the candidates should not suffer "ignominy" for the department’s internal procedural default

It was highlighted that the Union had already appointed 22 other candidates from the same selection process without the NOC, making the denial to the respondents selective and discriminatory

The Court further held that since the respondents were qualified and vacancies existed, the recruitment could not be scrapped at the "cusp of receiving appointment orders" without following the principles of natural justice

It held that the scrapping of the selection process was legally unsustainable as the administrative fault lay solely with the DGQA

The Court directed the Petitioners to issue offers of appointment to the respondents, clarifying that they are entitled to be treated as appointed from the same date as other candidates selected under the same advertisement