Denial of appointment solely on adverse CFSL reports is illegal; selected candidates receive joining and notional consequential benefits.

The Department of Posts issued a notification dated 25 February 2014 for direct recruitment to the posts of Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant for the vacancy year 2013–14.

Chatter Bhuj applied for Postal Assistant and Kuldeep for Sorting Assistant; both appeared in the written and computer/typing examinations and were included in the provisional select list.

Seema Devi was similarly selected in the same recruitment process.

During verification, the respondents compared the applicants’ examination signatures with their existing signatures and referred the matter to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL).

After receiving adverse or doubtful reports, show-cause notices were issued.

Although the applicants asserted that they had personally participated in the selection process, their candidature was cancelled and they were not permitted to join service.

The applicants challenged the rejection/cancellation orders and relied upon the Department’s policy decision dated 17 April 2025 and Circular dated 5 June 2026 concerning candidates affected solely by adverse CFSL reports.

Whether the respondents’ refusal to permit the applicants to join service, despite their selection, on the basis of adverse CFSL reports was illegal and arbitrary?

Whether the applicants were entitled to appointment/joining and consequential benefits pursuant to the Department’s policy decision dated 17 April 2025 and Circular dated 5 June 2026?

Whether the applicants were entitled to back wages and other pecuniary benefits for the period during which they did not work?

Whether the respondents could undertake further action against the applicants on grounds independent of the CFSL report, if supported by evidence?

The applications were filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal over service-related grievances.

The Tribunal applied the Department’s policy decision dated 17 April 2025, under which candidates whose candidature or service had been affected solely by adverse CFSL reports could receive reinstatement or restoration of candidature, subject to applicable rules and further action based on independent evidence.

It also relied on the Departmental Circular dated 5 June 2026, which required Circles to implement favourable judicial orders in such settled cases, while applying “No Work No Pay” wherever applicable and permitting action on independent grounds such as signature mismatch or other irregularities supported by evidence.

The Tribunal followed the earlier decisions in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., common judgment dated 28 July 2025, and Amit Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 13 November 2025, which granted joining/reinstatement and notional consequential benefits in materially identical circumstances.

The respondents’ limitation objection was rejected by distinguishing Manoj Rajput v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India, because that case involved a belated challenge to a dismissal order under Rule 19(ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, whereas the present cases were governed by the subsequent policy decision and identical judicial precedents.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had been selected but were denied appointment solely following the CFSL-based verification process.

Since the same recruitment-related issue had already been decided in favour of similarly placed candidates in Kanwar Singh and Amit Kumar, and the Department itself had subsequently adopted a policy for implementing such judicial decisions, the respondents could not maintain the refusal of joining in the present cases.

The Tribunal therefore treated the non-permitting of joining as illegal and arbitrary.

However, consistent with the earlier decisions and the Department’s Circular, it limited the financial relief to notional salary fixation and excluded actual pecuniary benefits, thereby giving effect to the “No Work No Pay” principle.

The respondents retained liberty to take action on any independent irregularity, including a proved signature mismatch, provided such action was not based merely on the CFSL report and was supported by evidence.

It held that the respondents’ action in not permitting the applicants to join despite their selection was illegal and arbitrary.

The respondents were directed to allow the applicants to join the posts of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, subject to medical fitness and completion of joining formalities.

The applicants were granted consequential benefits in the form of seniority according to their merit-list position and notional salary fixation, but no other pecuniary benefits or back wages.

Compliance was directed within six weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The respondents were permitted to take appropriate action on grounds independent of the CFSL report, if supported by evidence and in accordance with law.

There was no order as to costs, and any connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.