Essential qualifications in recruitment advertisements are sacrosanct and cannot be reinterpreted.

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) published an advertisement on November 15, 2019, inviting applications for direct recruitment to various posts, including Accountant, with six vacancies.

The applicant, Varun Gaba, applied for the post and scored All India rank-2 in the computerized examination held on January 29, 2020, with results declared on September 28, 2020.

His name was provisionally included in the select list, subject to document verification.

The applicant was called for document verification via email on October 7, 2020.

Subsequently, the CBSE declared the applicant ineligible and dropped his name from the list of selected candidates via communication dated April 7, 2021, on the grounds that he did not fulfill the essential eligibility criteria/experience for the post of Accountant.

The applicant approached the High Court of Delhi by filing WP (C) No. 8620/2021, which directed him to avail appropriate remedies.

He then filed OA No. 1862/2021, which was disposed of on September 2, 2021, with liberty to make a representation.

The CBSE rejected his claim via a detailed order dated October 28, 2021.

The applicant filed two further OAs (OA No. 2516/2021 and OA No. 1083/2023), both of which were dismissed (the latter withdrawn).

The present OA was filed seeking to quash the notice dated October 28, 2021, and subsequent notifications, and to reinstate his name in the shortlisted candidates for the post of Accountant.

The respondents' counter affidavit was not taken on record due to non-payment of costs, and their counsel opted to argue the OA on merits.

1. Whether the Impugned Notice dated October 28, 2021, and the cancellation notice dated April 7, 2021, were based on a vague, inappropriate, and unlawful interpretation of the recruitment advertisement for the post of Accountant.

2. Whether the applicant fulfilled the essential conditions for the post of Accountant as stipulated in the recruitment advertisement.

3. Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the applicant's candidature by interpreting the essential conditions to include both educational qualification and three years of qualifying regular service in a government/PSU body.

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The core legal principle applied was that the terms and conditions stated in an advertisement for recruitment are sacrosanct and must be strictly adhered to by both applicants and the recruiting authority.

It also applied the principle that an administrative authority has discretion to set eligibility conditions in accordance with recruitment rules, and a provisional selection does not confer an absolute right to appointment.

The court analyzed the applicant's contention that the recruitment advertisement for the post of Accountant had only a single essential condition: a Bachelor's degree with Commerce/Accounts.

The applicant argued that the additional condition of "3 years qualifying regular service in the grade" in Central/State/Statutory/Autonomous/PSUs ought to be read as desirable, not essential.

Crucially, the applicant had not challenged the terms and conditions of the advertisement itself, but rather the rejection of his candidature based on those conditions.

The court agreed with the respondents' counsel that the advertisement conditions, unchallenged by the applicant, should be considered sacrosanct.

The court found that the essential conditions for the post of Accountant clearly had two components: (i) a Bachelor's degree from a recognized university/institute with Commerce/Accountancy, which the applicant possessed; and (ii) three years of qualifying regular service in a government/PSU body in an analogous post, which the applicant admittedly did not possess.

Therefore, the court concluded that the respondents' interpretation of the essential conditions was correct and not arbitrary, as the applicant did not fulfill the second essential component.

The court also noted that a provisional selection does not create a legal right to appointment.

The court concluded that the respondents' rejection of the applicant's candidature vide order dated April 7, 2021, and the impugned order dated October 28, 2021, was valid because the applicant failed to fulfill the second essential condition for the post of Accountant, namely, three years of qualifying regular service in an analogous post in specified government or PSU organizations.

The applicant's prayer to quash the impugned notice and reinstate his name was denied.

No order as to costs was made.