An apparent error in category-wise vacancy computation warrants review and appointment of eligible wait-listed candidates.

The applicants, originally the third and fourth applicants in O.A. No. 217/2012, sought appointment as Trainee School Librarians pursuant to a 2009 notification for 30 vacancies.

In its 2014 order, the Tribunal directed appointment for two other applicants but denied relief to the present applicants, reasoning that the additional vacancies included only one MBC vacancy and no SC vacancy.

The present applicants’ challenge to that order was dismissed by the Madras High Court; the High Court later granted liberty to seek review, and subsequently remitted the Tribunal’s dismissal of the review application for reconsideration.

On reconsideration, the applicants argued that the Tribunal had miscomputed the category-wise vacancies and that vacancies existed for both MBC and SC candidates.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s 2014 order contained an error in its category-wise computation of the additional vacancies, warranting review.

2. Whether the present applicants were entitled to appointment against the MBC and SC vacancies identified on review.

The Tribunal treated a material factual error in the category-wise vacancy computation—affecting the applicants’ consideration for appointment—as a basis for reviewing its earlier order.

The original order had relied on N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157, and Mohd. Raisul Islam v. Gokul Mohan Hazarika, (2010) 7 SCC 560, concerning the recruitment rules applicable to a selection process.

The Tribunal confirmed that the vacancy notification and select-list materials showed 30 notified vacancies, with 21 candidates selected in the main list and candidates placed on category-wise waiting lists.

It found that the 2014 order had incorrectly recorded the eight additional vacancies as six UR, one OBC and one MBC; the correct distribution was four UR, one OBC, two MBC and one SC.

Because that error directly affected whether the applicants could be considered for appointment, the Tribunal held that the earlier finding of no relevant MBC or SC vacancies could not stand and that review was warranted.

It directed the respondents to appoint them as School Librarians under the MBC and SC categories, respectively, within three months.

The appointments were to be notionally effective from the dates on which the other applicants were appointed for seniority and consequential service benefits, but without arrears of pay for periods when the applicants had not worked.