Erroneous online declaration of supplementary passing justifies denial of first-attempt merit preference.

The Department of Posts issued Notification No. RECTT/1-41/GDS/2017 for selection and engagement of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) in the Rajasthan Circle against 1,577 posts, including 246 posts reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates

Selection was to be based on an automatically generated merit list using the marks obtained in the Class X examination. Candidates passing Class X in their first attempt were to be treated as more meritorious than candidates who passed compartmentally or through a supplementary examination

The applicant, a Scheduled Caste candidate, obtained 438 out of 500 marks, equivalent to 87.6%, in Class X

However, while submitting the online application, he marked “Yes” in the column relating to compartmental/supplementary examination. Consequently, he was treated as a candidate who had not passed Class X in the first attempt, and candidates with lower marks were considered in the merit process

The applicant challenged his non-selection before the Tribunal. The O.A. was dismissed for default on 29 March 2023 but was restored on 19 September 2023 pursuant to M.A. No. 200/2023

Despite restoration, the applicant’s side repeatedly remained absent. The Tribunal therefore decided the matter on the basis of the pleadings and material on record rather than dismissing it again for non-prosecution

1. Whether the applicant’s non-selection was arbitrary when he had secured 87.6% marks in Class X but had marked “Yes” against the compartmental/supplementary examination column in the online application

2. Whether the respondents were entitled to rely on the information furnished in the online application while preparing the automatically generated merit list, notwithstanding the applicant’s marksheet showing that he had passed Class X in the first attempt

The Tribunal applied the terms of the recruitment notification.

Under the educational qualification clause, a candidate who passed the Class X examination in the first attempt was to be treated as more meritorious than a candidate who passed compartmentally.

Under the selection criteria, selection was to be made through an automatically generated merit list based on the information submitted online by the candidates.

The notification further provided that candidature could be rejected where a candidate entered erroneous information or marks, or uploaded incorrect or unnecessary documents.

The governing principle was that the recruitment authority could uniformly determine merit on the basis of the candidates’ online declarations in accordance with the notified selection procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s marksheet established that he had actually passed Class X in the first attempt with 87.6% marks.

However, in the online application he expressly selected “Yes” in the compartmental/supplementary column.

Since the recruitment process was computerised and the merit list was automatically generated from the information supplied by each candidate, the respondents treated him as having passed compartmentally and accordingly considered the next candidate in merit.

The Tribunal held that the notification expressly made the candidates’ online submissions the basis of the selection process and warned that erroneous information could affect candidature.

As this procedure was applied uniformly and no arbitrariness was demonstrated, the respondents’ action was upheld.

His incorrect declaration in the online application justified his treatment as a compartmental/supplementary candidate for purposes of the automatic merit list, despite the marksheet indicating that he had passed Class X in the first attempt.

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.