Candidature rejection upheld as applicant's marks fell below the prescribed cut-off for the post.

The applicant, a candidate for the post of Deputy Legislative Counsel (Hindi) in the Official Languages Wing, Ministry of Law and Justice, challenged an undated rejection order published on 08.04.2024

The applicant contended that her candidature was erroneously rejected as she had cleared the preliminary scrutiny and was only asked for documents regarding "desirable qualifications," suggesting No deficiency in "essential qualifications" existed

The respondents countered that the applicant lacked the requisite essential qualifications according to the Recruitment Rules (RRs) and advertisement, and that a call for further scrutiny did not grant a vested right to appointment

During proceedings, the Tribunal directed the production of the applicant's result in a sealed cover

1. Whether the applicant’s candidature was wrongfully rejected despite her performance and the preliminary scrutiny process

2. Whether the applicant met the cut-off criteria required for shortlisting for the interview

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the jurisdiction for aggrieved public servants to seek redressal against recruitment and service-related orders

It adhered to the principle that recruitment must be conducted in strict accordance with the Recruitment Rules (RRs) and the cut-off marks prescribed by the recruiting authority for specific categories

The Tribunal analyzed the applicant's claim of eligibility against the actual performance data provided by the respondents. Upon perusing the sealed cover containing the results, the Tribunal found that while the cut-off marks for the Unreserved (UR) category for the post were set at 70 marks, the applicant had secured only 50 marks

The Tribunal noted that the argument regarding whether the applicant met "essential qualifications" was secondary to the fact that her marks were significantly below the established cut-off

The O.A. was disposed of, with the Tribunal holding that the issue of eligibility regarding essential qualifications could be adjudicated in future proceedings if required, but currently, the merit position barred the applicant's appointment. All pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) and Contempt Petitions (CPs) were also disposed of; no costs were awarded