Appointments contrary to mandatory Recruitment Rules are void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

The applicant applied under the unreserved category for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Post Code 64/15) pursuant to DSSSB Advertisement No. 01/15 dated 20 October 2015.

He cleared the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations and was called for document verification.

DSSSB issued Result Notice No. 663 dated 1 June 2018 and Result Notice No. 684 dated 10 July 2018, provisionally selecting candidates against the unreserved vacancies.

During the proceedings, the Transport Department constituted a committee to verify the experience certificates.

The applicant was wait-listed as Candidate No. 4 and sought appointment against the unreserved vacancies.

Whether the selection and appointment of private respondents who did not satisfy the mandatory experience requirement under the Recruitment Rules were liable to be quashed as void ab initio.

Whether the official respondents acted unlawfully by disregarding or selectively interpreting their own inspection and expert committee reports while validating the appointments.

Whether the wait-listed applicant was entitled to consideration and appointment against the unreserved vacancy, subject to verification of his eligibility.

Whether the pendency or dismissal of proceedings concerning an earlier interim status-quo order prevented final adjudication of the selection dispute.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The governing Advertisement and Recruitment Rules required at least five years’ experience in a reputed automobile workshop undertaking repairs of light motor vehicles, heavy motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engines.

Applying the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, the Tribunal held that the executive could not sustain appointments by selectively relying on candidates’ explanations while disregarding adverse verification findings.

It relied on State of U.P. v. Prem Chopra, (2024) 12 SCC, and Jagpal Singh v. State of U.P., (2023) 14 SCC 727, for the rule that an interim order ceases upon dismissal of the main proceedings and does not permanently validate benefits obtained solely under that interim order.

It further relied on Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC, for the principle that courts and authorities should ordinarily respect the findings of a properly constituted expert committee, and on Renu v. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Civil Appeal No. 979 of 2014, for the proposition that appointments made contrary to essential eligibility conditions are void even if the appointees have served for a substantial period.

The Tribunal examined the inspection report, committee report and the subsequent departmental action candidate-wise.

In the case of Aastrav Vajpayee, the workshop from which the requisite experience was claimed was not found at the stated address, his name was absent from the salary register, and his explanation that he had been paid in cash was unsupported by reliable documentary evidence.

In Rahul Sharma’s case, the relevant workshops were either closed or could not be verified, and there was no satisfactory proof of employment or salary payment; the Tribunal characterised the defence as insufficient to displace the adverse findings.

In Yogesh’s case, the alleged simultaneous employment with a private automobile service centre during his naval service was not supported by verified permission from the competent naval authorities.

The Tribunal held that the official respondents could not disregard the committee’s adverse conclusions and accept the candidates’ explanations without placing the matter before the competent technical authority.

Such selective treatment amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power and resulted in appointments dehors the Recruitment Rules.

Since eligibility was foundational, the appointments were treated as void ab initio, notwithstanding the fact that some candidates had already joined service.

The applicant’s claim was, however, made subject to independent verification of his own eligibility under the applicable Rules.

The appointments of Aastrav Vajpayee, Rahul Sharma and Yogesh, the latter being an OBC candidate treated as unreserved, were quashed and set aside as void ab initio for being contrary to the Recruitment Rules.

No recovery was directed from those individuals.

The respondents were directed to offer appointment to Rajat Goyal, although he was wait-listed as Candidate No. 4, subject to verification of his eligibility, within two months from receipt of the certified order, with consequential benefits on a notional basis.

The relief was confined to the parties to the Original Application, and there was no order as to costs.