Erroneous online declaration of compartmental passing validly excludes a candidate from automated merit selection.

The Department of Posts issued Notification No. RECTT/1-41/GDS/2017 for selection and engagement of Gramin Dak Sevaks in Rajasthan Circle against 1,577 posts, including 279 posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes.

Selection was to be based on marks obtained in the Class X examination through an automatically generated merit list.

Candidates who passed Class X in the first attempt were to be treated as more meritorious than candidates who passed compartmentally or through supplementary examination.

The applicant, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, obtained 461 out of 600 marks, equivalent to approximately 76.83%.

However, while completing the online application, he answered “Yes” to the question concerning compartmental or supplementary qualification.

On the basis of that declaration, he was treated as a candidate who had not passed Class X in the first attempt, and candidates with lower marks were selected instead.

The application was dismissed for default on 29 March 2023, but was restored on 19 September 2023 pursuant to M.A. No. 201/2023.

The applicant thereafter continued to remain unrepresented and did not pursue the matter.

The Tribunal nevertheless decided the case on merits on the basis of the pleadings and record rather than dismissing it again for non-prosecution.

Whether the respondents acted unlawfully or arbitrarily by treating the applicant as having passed Class X through compartmental or supplementary examination because he selected “Yes” in the relevant column of the online application form, despite his marks-sheet indicating that he had passed in the first attempt?

Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration for selection on the basis of his Class X marks and correction of the information submitted in the online application after completion of the computerised merit process?

The notification prescribed that selection would be made through an automatically generated merit list based on the candidates’ online applications and that a candidate who passed the Class X examination in the first attempt would be treated as more meritorious than one who passed compartmentally or through supplementary examination.

It further stipulated that candidature could be rejected where the candidate entered erroneous information or uploaded incorrect details, including incorrect marks, and required the selection process to operate on the basis of the information submitted online by the candidate.

No judicial precedent or separate statutory provision was relied upon in the order.

The Tribunal found from the applicant’s marks-sheet that he had actually passed Class X in the first attempt with 76.83% marks.

However, the applicant himself had selected “Yes” against the compartmental/supplementary column in the online application.

Since the recruitment process was computerised and the merit list was generated on the basis of the information furnished online, the respondents were entitled to process his candidature according to that declaration.

The notification expressly warned that erroneous information could affect or invalidate candidature.

The Tribunal therefore held that applying the declared information to the applicant, consistently with the manner in which all candidates were processed, was not arbitrary, even though the marks-sheet later appeared to show that he had passed in the first attempt.

The applicant was not granted reconsideration or appointment.

The dismissal was without an order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.