Authorities cannot deny engagement to top-ranked candidates because of administrative delay after verification is complete.

The applicants applied for Gramin Dak Sevak posts at Garha, District Hamirpur, and Narauli Pailani, District Banda, under a recruitment notification dated 31 December 2014.

Applicant 1 initially ranked second at Garha but became first after the candidate ranked first was engaged at another post; applicant 2 ranked first at Narauli Pailani.

The recruitment process was stopped in May 2015, revived in September 2015, and stopped again by Directorate instructions dated 1 August 2016.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ verification reports had been received by January and March 2016, respectively.

After the respondents rejected their claims on 28 February 2017, the applicants challenged that order and the Directorate’s stoppage instruction before the Tribunal.

Whether the applicants could be denied engagement, despite being first in merit for their respective posts and having completed the requisite verification, because of the subsequent instruction dated 1 August 2016 stopping pending engagements.

Whether the respondents’ refusal to engage the applicants, while engaging candidates from the same recruitment process, was arbitrary or discriminatory.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the basis for the applicants’ proceeding before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal recognised that inclusion in a merit list does not, by itself, create an indefeasible right to appointment or engagement; however, administrative action must not arbitrarily or discriminatorily deny equal treatment in public employment, protected by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Relying on East Coast Railway & Anr. v. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2794, the Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative order must be assessed by the reasons stated in it or contemporaneously recorded, and that an absence of reasons cannot be cured by explanations subsequently given in court proceedings.

The Tribunal found that both applicants stood first for their respective posts and that their verification reports had been received before the 1 August 2016 stoppage instruction.

The delay in issuing engagement letters was attributable to the respondents, not the applicants; the respondents therefore could not rely on that delay and the later instruction to defeat the applicants’ claims.

The Tribunal also noted that other candidates from the same recruitment process had been engaged, while no cogent reason was given for treating the applicants differently, rendering the differential treatment inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16.

It directed the competent authority to engage the applicants to their respective posts at Garha and Narauli Pailani, in accordance with their merit position and the recruitment process, by issuing engagement orders within eight weeks of receiving the order.

The Original Application was allowed; no order as to costs was made.