An appointment based on unauthorized additional marks in the merit list is liable to cancellation.

The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker at Bataupali Centre, Tahsil Sarangarh, by order dated 10 October 2017.

She stood first in the merit list with 55.24 marks, while Respondent No. 6 obtained 54.64 marks.

Respondent No. 6 challenged the appointment before the Collector, contending that the petitioner had wrongly been awarded three additional marks for passing Classes IX and X.

The Collector allowed the appeal on 05 June 2018, cancelled the petitioner’s appointment, and Respondent No. 6 was subsequently appointed.

The petitioner’s appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, was dismissed on 20 May 2022.

The petitioner consequently challenged the appellate order and the consequential order before the High Court.

1. Whether the petitioner was lawfully awarded three additional marks for having passed Classes IX and X, when the advertisement contained no such provision.

2. Whether the Collector and the Additional Commissioner were justified in cancelling the petitioner’s appointment and upholding the appointment of Respondent No. 6.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to continue working as an Anganwadi Worker at Bataupali Centre.

The Court applied the principle that selection and appointment must be based strictly on the criteria prescribed in the applicable advertisement or recruitment scheme.

Marks cannot be granted for an additional qualification when the governing advertisement contains no provision authorising such award.

An appointment founded on an erroneous assessment of merit may therefore be corrected or cancelled by the competent authority.

The Court found no statutory provision or precedent requiring separate consideration in the present case; its decision rested on the absence of authority to award the additional marks and on the factual findings recorded by the departmental appellate authorities.

The petitioner’s apparent lead in the merit list resulted from the erroneous addition of three marks for Classes IX and X.

Since the advertisement did not provide for such additional marks, the Court held that the original merit position was incorrectly calculated.

The Collector was therefore justified in detecting the anomaly, allowing Respondent No. 6’s appeal, and cancelling the petitioner’s appointment.

The Additional Commissioner subsequently upheld that conclusion.

As the departmental findings were consistent with the prescribed selection criteria and disclosed no ground for interference, the High Court declined to disturb the impugned orders.

It held that the three additional marks had been wrongly awarded, that cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment was justified, and that Respondent No. 6’s appointment could stand.

The writ petition challenging the order dated 20 May 2022 and the consequential order was dismissed, with no order as to costs.