Candidates are bound by post preferences; non-option of specific categories indicates unwillingness precluding merit-based consideration.

The applicant applied for Non-Technical Popular Categories (Graduate) posts under CEN No. 03/2015.

Initially, the applicant exercised post preferences for Category-1 and Category-3.

Due to a change in vacancies following the 7th Central Pay Commission, the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) allowed candidates to submit fresh online preferences between 08.05.2017 and 14.05.2017.

The applicant submitted fresh preferences for Categories 1, 3, 5, and 6, but notably omitted Categories 2 and 4.

The applicant secured 84.79531 marks.

While his marks were higher than the cut-offs for Categories 2 and 4, they were lower than the cut-offs for the four categories he had specifically opted for.

The respondents rejected his claim for appointment via an order dated 06.01.2022, on the grounds that he had not opted for the categories where he met the merit threshold.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be considered for appointment to posts (Categories 2 and 4) for which he did not exercise a preference during the fresh option window.

2. Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily by prioritizing post-preferences over overall merit in the selection process.

The court applied Clause 1.07 and 1.07.01 of the Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No. 03/2015, which stipulates that candidates with "partial option" will be considered only for specific categories opted by them, as non-selection indicates unwillingness.

It further relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan Ors. (2011), which held that recruitment selection must strictly follow the advertised rules and no appointment can be made dehors (outside) the rules.

The Tribunal reasoned that the selection process was governed by the specific terms of the advertisement, which explicitly stated that candidates would only be considered for categories they opted for.

The applicant consciously chose to limit his preferences to Categories 1, 3, 5, and 6 during the modification window.

Although his marks (84.79) exceeded the cut-offs for Categories 2 and 4, the "unwillingness" clause (1.07.01) legally barred his consideration for those posts.

The court found that the respondents were bound by the merit list within the specific categories chosen by the applicant; since his marks were lower than the prescribed cut-offs for his chosen categories (ranging from 87.27 to 90.65), he was rightly excluded.

The Tribunal emphasized that rules cannot be relaxed for individuals and the selection was transparently conducted based on the pre-declared criteria.

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order dated 06.01.2022 and dismissed the Original Application as devoid of merit. No costs were awarded.