An eligible candidate cannot be rejected solely by reference to an undisclosed merit-list position.

The applicant applied pursuant to the Department of Posts’ GDS recruitment notification dated 27.04.2021 for engagement as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster at Haraji Branch Post Office, Bihar.

Her candidature was initially rejected because she had not studied Hindi as a subject in Matriculation, although she had studied Hindi up to Class VIII and subsequently in Intermediate and Graduation, and had secured 95% marks/10 CGPA in Class X.

In OA No. 282 of 2021, the Tribunal directed the respondents not to disqualify her merely for not having studied Hindi in Matriculation, subject to fulfilment of all other qualifications; that order was upheld by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 9192 of 2024 on 12.02.2025.

Thereafter, the Chief Postmaster General directed that her candidature be included while declaring the result for the post.

The respondents incorporated her manual application into a merit list of 1,305 candidates, in which she was placed at Serial No. 286, and rejected her candidature on the ground that she was not among the top five candidates.

During hearing, the respondents stated that no appointment had yet been made to the post.

1. Whether the respondents complied with the earlier judicial direction by meaningfully and transparently considering the applicant’s candidature after removing the disqualification relating to Hindi in Matriculation.

2. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s candidature solely by reference to her placement at Serial No. 286 in an undisclosed merit list was legally sustainable.

3. Whether the respondents were required to verify the eligibility, availability and status of candidates placed above the applicant before rejecting her candidature.

The Tribunal applied the eligibility requirement under the GDS recruitment notification that the candidate must have studied the prescribed local language, while giving effect to the binding direction in OA No. 282 of 2021 that the applicant could not be treated as ineligible merely because Hindi was not studied as a subject in Matriculation, provided all other qualifications were fulfilled.

It relied on Priyanka Singh v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 539 of 2011, as upheld by the Patna High Court, for the principle that rejection on the hyper-technical ground of absence of Hindi in Matriculation was unjustified where the candidate had acquired knowledge of Hindi through subsequent education.

The Tribunal also recognised that eligibility does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, but held that administrative authorities must undertake a fair, transparent and reasoned consideration of candidature.

Relying on Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, it held that reasons are essential to demonstrate application of mind and permit effective review of administrative decisions.

The applicant’s eligibility issue had already been conclusively decided in her favour, and the respondents were therefore required to consider her candidature in accordance with the recruitment notification and the earlier judicial orders.

Although her application was included in the merit list, the impugned order merely stated that she stood at Serial No. 286 and was outside the select panel of five candidates.

It did not disclose the complete merit list, the number of available vacancies, whether candidates ranked above her satisfied all eligibility requirements, or whether any had declined engagement, failed verification, or otherwise become unavailable.

Further, Annexure-R/3 referred to an alleged top-meritorious candidate whose application was stated to be dated 22.05.2015, whereas the relevant recruitment notification was dated 27.04.2021; the respondents failed to reconcile this discrepancy.

Since no appointment had yet been made, the applicant’s claim could not be rejected without a proper determination of the status of candidates ranked above her.

The decision was consequently non-speaking, insufficiently reasoned and inconsistent with the requirement of meaningful compliance with the earlier judicial directions.

The respondents, particularly the competent appointing authority, were directed to reconsider her candidature strictly under the applicable recruitment notification and in light of OA No. 282 of 2021 and the Patna High Court’s order in CWJC No. 9192 of 2024.

They must verify the complete merit position, number of vacancies, eligibility and availability of candidates placed above the applicant, and whether such candidates remain entitled to engagement.

If those candidates are unavailable, ineligible or otherwise disentitled, the applicant must be considered for engagement according to her merit position and the applicable rules.

The exercise was directed to be completed within two months from receipt of the order.

The OA was allowed without costs.