Adverse disability-related findings require a prior hearing; below-cutoff candidates remain ineligible for appointment.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 04.12.2023 cancelling his candidature for the State Service Examination, 2019 on the ground that he had furnished incorrect information regarding his disability.

He contended that his locomotor disability arose from multiple fractures and injuries sustained in an accident while on duty. His original disability certificate did not clearly specify the nature of the disability, but a subsequently revised certificate expressly recorded locomotor disability (LD).

Whether the respondents could record an adverse and stigmatic finding that the petitioner had furnished incorrect information regarding his disability without affording him an opportunity of hearing?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to selection or appointment under the State Service Examination, 2019 despite having secured fewer marks than the cut-off for the OH (LD) category?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, holding that an adverse or stigmatic finding affecting a person’s rights or reputation cannot be recorded without providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Court also applied the applicable categorisation and merit principle for the examination: a candidate with locomotor disability was required to be considered under the OH (LD) category, and selection depended upon securing marks equal to or above the relevant cut-off.

The Court found that the petitioner’s revised disability certificate recorded locomotor disability and accepted that, for examination purposes, his candidature was to be assessed under the OH (LD) category.

However, his score of 561.462 was substantially below the OH (LD) cut-off of 674.117. Consequently, even if his candidature were considered in that category, he could not qualify for selection or appointment.

At the same time, the finding that he had furnished incorrect information regarding his disability was adverse and stigmatic. Since that finding had been made without giving him an opportunity to explain his position, it violated the principles of natural justice and could not be sustained.

Nevertheless, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to selection or appointment because his marks were below the OH (LD) cut-off.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations.