Failure to meet final revised cut-off marks precludes appointment regardless of prior selection or existing vacancies.

The applicant participated in the 2012 recruitment for Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), securing 297.50 marks

Initially excluded for failing an interview minimum-mark criterion, the applicant successfully challenged this in prior litigation, leading to a result revision where the cut-off was set at 297.50

Following subsequent judicial directions in Anjani Kumar Ors. (OA No. 1812/2013), the results were revised again, and the final cut-off was enhanced to 300 marks

Consequently, the applicant was declared "fail" in the final revised result dated 15.03.2018

The applicant challenged this exclusion, alleging that candidates with lower marks were retained and that unfilled vacancies should be used for his appointment

1. Whether a candidate has a vested right to appointment when they fail to meet the final revised cut-off marks determined pursuant to judicial directions

2. Whether the retention of previously appointed candidates with lower marks, pursuant to specific judicial protection, constitutes a violation of Article 14 (right to equality) for candidates not yet appointed

3. Whether the existence of unfilled vacancies entitles a candidate to appointment regardless of merit list standing

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regarding its jurisdiction

The precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Satinder Pal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 16782/2025), which held that once a final revised cut-off is applied, candidates below it have no right to appointment

The principle from Vikas Pratap Singh Ors. vs. State, which protects the service of already-appointed individuals during result revisions

The settled legal tenet that the "filling up of vacancies lies within the exclusive domain of the employer," and mere existence of vacancies does not confer a vested right to appointment

The Court reasoned that the applicant’s marks (297.50 or 275 as noted in conflicting parts of the record) were indisputably below the final revised cut-off of 300 marks

The Tribunal found that the revisions were not arbitrary but were mandatory compliance with judicial orders in the Anjani Kumar case

Regarding parity, the Tribunal explained that the applicant could not compare himself to candidates who had already joined and were protected from ouster by the Supreme Court; since the applicant was never appointed, he did not share the same legal status as those retained

The Tribunal noted the excessive delay, observing that the recruitment originated in 2012, and reopening the process after over a decade without evidence of "patent illegality" would be inappropriate

Final revised cut-off of 300 is binding; no "unlawful parity" existed as the appointed candidates were protected by specific judicial mandates; and the existence of vacancies does not mandate the appointment of unsuccessful candidates

No costs were awarded