Eligibility corrigendum issued before the application deadline binds candidates; examination participation creates no vested right.

The applicant, possessing a B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering, applied for the post of Assistant Communication Officer, Post Code NW11720, pursuant to the SSC Phase-VIII/2020 Selection Post advertisement dated 21 February 2020.

The SSC issued a corrigendum dated 2 March 2020, before the last date for applications, substituting the word “of” with “or” in the prescribed educational qualification.

The applicant thereafter appeared in the Computer Based Examination held on 9 November 2020 and qualified for the next stage.

Upon scrutiny, his candidature was rejected on the ground: “B.Tech in Electrical (EQ not fulfil)”.

A rejection list was issued on 13 January 2022, and the applicant’s representation dated 19 January 2022 was considered but rejected on the same ground.

The final result was declared on 21 November 2022, following which the applicant challenged the rejection and sought consideration of his candidature.

Whether the corrigendum dated 2 March 2020 unlawfully altered the essential qualification during the selection process, thereby prejudicing the applicant’s candidature?

Whether a B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering fulfilled the essential qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Communication Officer?

Whether the applicant acquired any enforceable right merely by being permitted to participate in, and qualify, the Computer Based Examination?

Whether the applicant was denied a fair opportunity to challenge the rejection of his candidature?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that recruitment must be conducted strictly in accordance with the notified eligibility conditions and the applicable Recruitment Rules, and that a candidate lacking the prescribed essential qualification cannot claim appointment merely because he participated in the selection process or qualified at an earlier stage.

The advertisement expressly made candidature provisional at every stage and authorised cancellation upon subsequent verification of eligibility.

The Tribunal relied on Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85, for the rule that no appointment can be made dehors the applicable rules and that eligibility conditions cannot be relaxed for an individual candidate.

The Tribunal held that the corrigendum was issued on 2 March 2020, well before the application deadline of 20 March 2020 and several months before the examination, and therefore did not constitute an alteration of eligibility during the selection process to the applicant’s prejudice.

The corrected qualification expressly covered degrees in Electronics, Electronics and Communication, Information Technology, Computer Science, or Information and Communication Technology, but not Electrical Engineering.

Since the applicant possessed only a B.Tech. in Electrical Engineering, he did not satisfy the notified essential qualification.

His provisional admission to the examination and success in the CBE created no vested right to further consideration or appointment.

Further, the applicant had been informed of the rejection and was given an opportunity to submit a representation, which was duly considered by the User Department.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not challenged the corrigendum when issued and had raised the objection only after rejection of his candidature.

It held that the corrigendum dated 2 March 2020 was a timely correction issued before the closing date for applications; that B.Tech. in Electrical Engineering was not an essential qualification for the post; and that participation in or success at the CBE did not confer any right to appointment or continued consideration.

The rejection of the applicant’s candidature was therefore upheld, and the Original Application was dismissed.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.