Failure to Correct Recruitment Category Discrepancy Prior to Examination Precludes Subsequent Claims for Reserved Quota Benefits

The applicant applied for a Group ‘D’ post under Employment Notice No. 01/2007, claiming to be an Unreserved (UR) category candidate under the Physically Handicapped (PH) quota

He possessed a disability certificate and appeared for the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) on 29.04.2011

the respondents treated him as a general UR candidate because his application allegedly did not reflect a valid PH claim

The respondents issued a PET call letter under the UR category, which instructed candidates to report discrepancies three days before the test; the applicant failed to do so

The applicant alleged he cleared the PET and was awaiting a written exam call letter, while respondents contended he was marked absent as he sought an impermissible PET exemption on the day of the test

The applicant approached the Tribunal in 2014 seeking appointment under the PH quota

1. Whether the respondents can be directed to reconsider the applicant’s case under the Physically Handicapped (PH) quota in the unreserved category after the completion of the recruitment process

2. Whether the applicant established that he had successfully applied and qualified under the PH category as per the recruitment rules

the burden of proof lies upon the candidate to establish they applied under a specific quota and met the prescribed requirements of the employment notice

once a selection process is complete and subsequent recruitments have occurred, the court should be reluctant to interfere, especially if the candidate failed to challenge discrepancies in their candidacy (such as category classification in a call letter) at the earliest opportunity

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove he had actually applied under the PH quota, as no evidence beyond bare assertions was provided

It noted significant discrepancies in the applicant's disability certificate, which appeared tampered with regarding the percentage of disability (10% vs 40%)

The court emphasized that the call letter for the PET was explicitly issued under the General/UR category, and the applicant’s failure to raise an objection at that time or before the PET date was fatal to his claim

the Tribunal observed a contradiction: the applicant claimed to have passed the PET, while simultaneously seeking the benefits of a PH candidate who is typically exempt from such tests

Given that the recruitment began in 2007, the PET was held in 2011, and the OA was filed only in 2014—after the selection process was finalized—the Tribunal determined that granting relief would be inappropriate and legally unsustainable

The court dismissed the Original Application, refusing to direct the respondents to reconsider the applicant for appointment under the PH quota, noting that the recruitment process was already complete and subsequent selections had likely taken place