Candidature cancellation valid when show cause notice delivered despite applicant's denial.

The applicant, Abhishek, successfully qualified the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination for the post of LDC/MTS.

His name appeared in the select list.

However, his candidature was cancelled by an impugned order dated 15.12.2015, on the alleged ground that he failed to respond to a show cause notice issued by the respondents, leading to an inference of impersonation.

The applicant contended that he never received the show cause notice, asserting that the fault lay with the Postal Department, which allegedly lost the speed post article containing the notice.

He supported this with a reply received from the Postal Department under the RTI Act, indicating that "SPA No. EU3338949801N dated 20.11.2015 ... was lost at Fahimpur Khurd B.O."

Conversely, the respondents submitted postal tracking reports showing the speed post article was "Item Delivered" on 26.11.2015 at Fahimpur Khurd B.O.

The respondents also highlighted inconsistencies in the applicant's arguments, contrasting his current stand with statements in a prior legal notice where he claimed to have visited their office multiple times for document verification and further examinations.

The respondents further raised objections regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant did not implead the Postal Department as a party in the present proceedings.

The selection process concluded several years prior to the application.

Whether the cancellation of the applicant's candidature was justified given his claim of non-receipt of the show cause notice.

Whether the applicant's contention regarding the Postal Department's fault has merit in the absence of the Postal Department being impleaded as a party.

Whether the principles relating to disciplinary inquiry procedure (Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules) are applicable to a selection and recruitment process.

The court considered the principle that a party alleging fault by a third entity (here, the Postal Department) must implead that entity for proper adjudication.

It also distinguished between the specific rules governing disciplinary inquiries (like Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules) pertaining to already employed individuals and the procedures applicable to selection and recruitment processes for prospective employees.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim of non-receipt of the show cause notice lacked credibility.

While the applicant provided an RTI response suggesting the speed post article was lost, the respondents presented a postal tracking report explicitly indicating "Item Delivered" to the specified branch office.

The applicant's previous legal notice, which stated he had visited the respondents' office for verification and examination after the alleged cancellation, further undermined his current assertion of being unaware of the proceedings.

The Tribunal deemed his current stand as not inspiring confidence.

Furthermore, the applicant's reliance on Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was held to be misplaced, as these rules apply to disciplinary inquiries against existing employees, not to challenges in a recruitment process.

Crucially, the Tribunal noted that if the applicant genuinely believed the Postal Department was at fault, he should have impleaded them as a party to the proceedings, which he failed to do.

Lastly, the recruitment process in question had concluded several years prior, and the process itself had run its course.

The Tribunal held that no ground was made out for granting the relief sought, as the applicant's explanation for not responding to the show cause notice was deemed unreliable given the contrasting evidence and his prior statements.

The Tribunal also determined that the applicant's failure to implead the Postal Department, if they were truly at fault, weakened his claim against the respondents.

All pending miscellaneous applications were also dismissed, with no order as to costs.