Candidature cannot be cancelled without first deciding a court-mandated representation through a reasoned speaking order.

The applicant, selected as an Income Tax Inspector through the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE), 2021, was concurrently undergoing mandatory training for the post of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer in the Intelligence Bureau (IB) from January to May 2023

During this period, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued a memorandum on March 21, 2023, requiring selected candidates to submit zone preferences online by March 29, 2023

Due to strict IB training protocols prohibiting electronic devices and internet access, the applicant failed to submit his preference, resulting in the auto-allotment of the Chennai Zone despite his high merit rank

The applicant filed multiple representations and previously approached the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 10052/2023, which directed the respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the matter while dispensing with the requirement for him to join at Chennai in the interim

However, the respondents cancelled the applicant’s candidature via an order dated February 6, 2024, without first adjudicating his request for a zone change

Whether the respondents’ act of cancelling the applicant's candidature without deciding his representation for a change of zone, as mandated by the Delhi High Court, was arbitrary and legally sustainable

Whether the applicant's failure to submit zone preferences due to institutional restrictions during IB training constitutes a valid ground for the reconsideration of his allotment on merit-cum-preference grounds

The court primarily considered the principles of administrative fairness and the doctrine of compliance with judicial directions.

DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 09.08.1995, which governs the cancellation of candidature for failure to report for duty

CBDT Memorandum dated 21.03.2023, which outlines the "merit-cum-preference" allotment system and the conditions under which preferences must be exercised

The court relied on the specific judicial mandates issued by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 10052/2023, which necessitated a reasoned speaking order on the applicant's representation prior to taking final adverse action

The Tribunal observed that the applicant was physically and legally prevented from accessing the internet due to his IB training rules, making it impossible for him to comply with the CBDT’s zone preference deadline

The respondents’ argument—that the applicant failed to report to Chennai despite multiple extensions—was found to be flawed because the Delhi High Court had specifically dispensed with his joining at Chennai until his representation was decided

The court reasoned that the respondents bypassed judicial instructions by cancelling the applicant's candidature (via order dated 06.02.2024) without first passing a speaking order on his representation

By failing to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide it on its merits as directed, the respondents committed a procedural irregularity that rendered the cancellation premature and arbitrary

The respondents are required to treat the said writ petition as a representation and decide it on its own merits through a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days

Critically, the Tribunal ordered that the cancellation of the applicant’s candidature dated February 6, 2024, shall remain in abeyance until the representation is formally decided

No costs were awarded