Court Upholds Protection of Reserved Post for Meritorious Candidate Despite Lack of Grounds to Quash Entire Selection.

The petitioner applied for the post of Constable in the IRP 16th to 20th Battalions pursuant to a February 2009 advertisement

He alleged that despite possessing superior qualifications (10+2, typing, and computer diploma) entitling him to 26 marks, he was excluded from the select list issued on 12.11.2009, while private respondents with 24–25 marks were selected

He challenged the constitution of two parallel selection boards (Central and Range Level) via Order No. 572 of 2009 as a violation of Rule 172 of the Police Rules

The respondents contended the petitioner secured only 22 marks

Notably, the High Court had passed an interim order on 27.11.2009 directing that one post in the Open Category remain vacant pending litigation

1. Whether the constitution of parallel recruitment boards and the non-disclosure of specific vacancies in the advertisement notice invalidated the entire selection process.

2. Whether the petitioner was wrongfully excluded from the merit list despite allegedly possessing higher merit than the selected private respondents.

The court applied the principle of judicial restraint in recruitment matters, holding that courts should be slow to interfere with completed selections or unsettle appointments of a large body of employees unless a gross illegality is established

It underscored the "No Work, No Pay" principle regarding retrospective monetary benefits

The court also prioritized the doctrine of balancing equities, where interim protections (such as reserving a post) must be given effect even if the broader challenge to the selection process fails

The Tribunal found that at this belated stage, the general allegations of non-transparency, uneven tehsil representation, and procedural irregularities in the board's constitution were insufficient to quash the entire select list

However, it noted a sharp factual dispute: the petitioner claimed 26 marks while the State claimed he earned 22

Rather than dismissing the claim as academic, the Tribunal observed that the High Court’s 2009 interim order protecting one post created a "right of consideration" that must be honored

The Tribunal reasoned that justice required an objective verification of the petitioner's actual marks against the original record to determine if he would have made the cut in the Open Merit category

The respondents must verify the petitioner's marks and eligibility from the original record within 12 weeks. If found meritorious, he is to be appointed with consequential benefits; however, back wages are denied under the "No Work, No Pay" principle. If found ineligible, a reasoned speaking order must be issued