Clerical errors in provisional merit lists do not vest indefeasible rights to appointment.

The Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Grade-3 (Unreserved Woman category) under an advertisement dated 09.06.2023 issued by the District and Session Court, Durg

In the provisional selection list dated 03.10.2023, the Petitioner was shown to have secured 193.5 marks and ranked 31st

However, the authorities issued a final selection list on 16.10.2023 wherein the Petitioner’s name was removed, and her marks were corrected to 139.5 due to an alleged typographical/computer tabulation error

Simultaneously, Respondent No. 3’s marks were increased from 107.5 to 184.5 after re-checking

The Petitioner challenged the final list and the order dated 17.10.2023, alleging the rectification was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice

1. Whether the respondent authorities acted high-handedly or illegally in rectifying the marks and amending the selection list without prior notice to the Petitioner.

2. Whether the inclusion of a name in a provisional merit list creates an indefeasible right to appointment.

The Court applied the principle that a candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely by inclusion in a merit list, especially a provisional one

It relied on the "Doctrine of Empty Formality" and "Useless Formality Theory," as established in State of Manipur & Ors. v. Y. Token Singh & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 65, which holds that natural justice is not a straitjacket formula and need not be complied with where facts are admitted or indisputable

The Court further referenced Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan (2000) 7 SCC 529, affirming that courts will not compel the observance of natural justice if only one conclusion is possible and the exercise would be futile

The Court observed that the provisional list dated 03.10.2023 contained an explicit caveat that the Selection Committee retained the power to rectify any tabulation or clerical errors based on original data

Upon judicial scrutiny of the physical answer sheets (Annexure R/2-A), the Court verified that the Petitioner actually secured 139.5 marks, making the initial entry of 193.5 a "factual impossibility" and a "bona fide mistake"

The Court reasoned that since the mathematical reality of the marks recorded on the physical answer script could not be altered by any representation, providing a hearing would be a "useless formality"

The Administration has an inherent duty to ensure public employment is granted based on actual merit rather than accidental clerical errors

The direct answer to the issues is that no indefeasible right was created by the provisional list, and the rectification did not require a hearing given the indisputable nature of the calculation error

The Writ Petition was dismissed