Authorities must adjudicate service preference claims against vacancies caused by resignation before filling the post.

The applicant participated in the "Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and CAPFs Examination, 2022."

He was initially issued an offer of appointment for his first preference, the Delhi Police, on 24.08.2022.

However, following a revised result, his first preference was rejected, and he was allocated to his second preference, the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).

The applicant challenged the merit list, alleging that Respondent No. 4 (Rajat), selected under the Ex-Serviceman (ESM) "Special Category," was ineligible because he was only 24 years old and had been invalided out of service on medical grounds, which the applicant argued disqualified him from the specific reservation benefit.

During proceedings, the applicant claimed Respondent No. 4 had resigned from the post.

The applicant submitted a representation on 22.12.2025 seeking correction of his preference allocation, which remained pending.

1. Whether the official respondents are required to decide the applicant's pending representation regarding his eligibility for his first preference (Delhi Police) in light of the alleged ineligibility and resignation of a higher-ranked candidate.

2. Whether the applicant can be accommodated against the vacancy purportedly created by the resignation of Respondent No. 4.

Principles of administrative fairness and the right to be considered for public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

HMA Guidelines for Recruitment Medical Examination in Central Armed Police Forces, specifically regarding documentation and undertakings required for Ex-Servicemen reservation.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the underlying merits of the eligibility of Respondent No. 4 but focused on the administrative obligation of the respondents to address the applicant’s grievances.

The Court noted the applicant’s specific contention that Respondent No. 4’s age and pension status (invalid pension) suggested a medical discharge that might preclude the use of the ESM reservation for the Delhi Police slot.

The Tribunal reasoned that since Respondent No. 4 had reportedly resigned, the respondents were duty-bound to verify this fact and determine if the resulting vacancy could be legally offered to the applicant as per his original preference and merit.

The Tribunal emphasized that a "reasoned and speaking order" was necessary to satisfy the principles of natural justice.

The respondents were ordered to verify the resignation of Respondent No. 4 and pass a reasoned order on whether the applicant can be accommodated in his first preference (Delhi Police).

The Tribunal issued an interim direction that any post vacated by Respondent No. 4 shall not be filled until the disposal of the applicant's representation.

No order as to costs was made.