Correction of internal calculation errors in selection processes does not entitle other candidates to post-deadline merit enhancements.

The applicant, a B.Tech graduate under the RBA category, applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under three J&K Public Service Commission (PSC) notifications issued between 2013 and 2015

Initially, he was placed at Serial No. 7 in the select list for the 2015 notification

Respondent No. 6 represented that his B.Tech marks were incorrectly calculated due to a CGPA conversion error

The Commission rectified this, increasing Respondent No. 6's merit, which triggered a reshuffling of candidates based on merit-cum-preference

Consequently, Respondent No. 5 displaced the applicant in the 2015 list, pushing the applicant to the waiting list

The applicant previously filed SWP No. 840/2017, leading to a High Court direction for the PSC to verify rival claims

The PSC subsequently issued Office Order No. 05-PSC/DR/2018 rejecting the applicant's claim for parity and experience marks

The applicant challenged this rejection and the revised selection list

1. Whether the correction of calculation errors for one candidate (Respondent No. 6) necessitates the granting of additional experience marks to another candidate (the applicant) after the cut-off date?

2. Whether the displacement of the applicant from the select list to the waiting list due to merit-cum-preference reshuffling was legally sustainable?

The court primarily applied the principle that eligibility and qualifications must be determined as of the cut-off date specified in the advertisement

It relied on Article 14 of the Constitution, noting that equality cannot be invoked to claim a benefit not admissible under the rules or to seek parity with an "illegality" (though here the correction was legal)

The court followed the doctrine of limited judicial review in selection matters, which mandates that Tribunals should not act as appellate authorities over expert bodies unless there is proven mala fides or patent arbitrariness

Centrally, it distinguished between the "rectification of a clerical error" in existing records versus the "introduction of new claims" after the selection process

The Tribunal reasoned that Respondent No. 6 did not gain a new qualification but merely had an existing mathematical error in his CGPA conversion corrected to reflect his true merit

the applicant sought to add experience marks that were not claimed in the prescribed manner in his original application

The Tribunal held that allowing such an addition after the cut-off date would violate the sanctity of the selection process and prove unfair to other candidates

Regarding the reshuffling, the Tribunal found that once Respondent No. 6's merit was corrected, the shift of Respondent No. 5 (who had higher merit than the applicant) into the applicant’s slot was a lawful application of merit-cum-preference rules

The Tribunal further noted that the applicant had inspected the records as directed by the High Court and had at that time acknowledged the correctness of the preferences and calculations

It held that a candidate in a waiting list has no indefeasible right to appointment and that the PSC’s Office Order No. 05-PSC/DR/2018 was valid as it distinguished between a correction of a calculation mistake and an impermissible post-facto improvement of a candidate's profile. All interim orders were vacated.