Cancellation of Candidature Without Reason: Representation for Extension to be Considered

The applicant, Dr. Rahul, filed an original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to quash an order dated August 13, 2025, which cancelled his candidature for the post of Medical Officer GDMO Sub-Cadre under the Health & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

The applicant contended that the cancellation was illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, especially since other individuals, whose names were listed, had been granted extensions up to May 26, 2025, to accept offer letters or join their positions.

The applicant sought an extension until December 4, 2025, to join after completing his M.D. course.

Whether the cancellation of the applicant's candidature for the post of Medical Officer GDMO Sub-Cadre was illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory given that other candidates were granted extensions to join their posts.

Whether the applicant should be granted an extension to join the post of Medical Officer GDMO Sub-Cadre until December 4, 2025, after completing his M.D. course.

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the filing of applications seeking reliefs.

The court also implicitly relied on the general principles of natural justice and fair play, which mandate that administrative actions should not be arbitrary or discriminatory and should be based on reasoned consideration, especially when similar situated individuals receive different treatment.

The applicant's counsel argued that the cancellation order was issued without providing any reasons, highlighting that fourteen other individuals had already been granted extensions to accept their offer letters or join their posts.

This selective treatment formed the basis of the claim of discrimination.

Given this contention, the Tribunal directed the applicant to make a comprehensive representation to the respondents, allowing them to present his case and the respondents to provide a reasoned explanation for their actions, particularly in light of the extensions granted to others.

This approach allowed the Tribunal to dispose of the matter at the admission stage without delving into the merits, ensuring that the administrative authority first addresses the applicant’s grievance with due consideration of the stated facts.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to make a comprehensive representation to the competent authority among the respondents within 10 days of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The respondents were, in turn, directed to dispose of this representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days of its receipt, specifically considering the fact that 14 other persons had been accorded extensions of time.

A copy of the speaking order must be provided to the applicant.

No order as to costs was made.