### CANCELLATION OF SELECTION DUE TO MINOR CLERICAL DISCREPANCIES IN NOTIFICATION IS ARBITRARY IF CANDIDATES MEET PRESCRIBED STANDARDS

The three applicants applied for the posts of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDS BPM) in the Sultanpur Division following a notification dated 29.01.2016.

After being selected and undergoing document verification, the respondents issued impugned orders dated 17.10.2016 cancelling the entire notification and their selection.

The respondents justified the cancellation on the grounds that the advertisement’s educational qualification ("Matric/High School or equivalent") deviated from the departmental instructions dated 14.01.2015, which prescribed a "Secondary School Examination pass certificate of 10th standard" without mentioning "equivalent".

The cancellation was executed following a directive from the Circle Office dated 19.07.2016.

1. Whether the discrepancy between the educational qualifications mentioned in the recruitment notification and the departmental instructions was a valid ground to cancel the selection of candidates who otherwise met the prescribed criteria.

2. Whether the cancellation of the selection process at the behest of a higher authority (Circle Office) without an independent application of mind by the competent authority is legally sustainable.

Tribunal applied the principles of administrative law regarding arbitrary state action and the doctrine of independent exercise of power.

GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, and the "Revised eligibility criteria for engagement to GDS posts" dated 14.01.2015.

An order passed at the "behest or diktat" of a higher authority, rather than by the empowered authority’s own discretion, is invalid.

Selection process should not be summarily cancelled for minor technicalities if the candidates are otherwise qualified and the error is curable via a corrigendum.

The Tribunal observed that all three applicants possessed High School/Secondary School certificates from recognized boards, satisfying both the 2016 notification and the 2015 instructions.

The inclusion of "equivalent" in the advertisement merely enlarged the eligibility field and did not exclude any qualified candidates; therefore, the error was not fatal and could have been rectified through a corrigendum.

The Tribunal characterized the respondents' decision to scrap the entire selection after its completion as "throwing away the baby with the bathwater".

The Respondent No. 3 failed to exercise independent judgment, instead acting solely on the "diktat" of the Circle Office, which rendered the impugned orders hit by the vice of arbitrariness and procedural violation.

It quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 17.10.2016 and directed the respondents to allow the applicants to join the respective posts for which they were selected within three months of receiving the order.

The OA was allowed with no order as to costs.