Facts
The respondents issued a recruitment notification for Junior Engineer (Civil) posts in NDMC (Post Code 64/13) and Delhi Jal Board (Post Code 66/13).
Source reference: p. 2A common selection process was conducted, and the applicant, belonging to the OBC category, participated in Tier-I and Tier-II examinations.
Source reference: p. 2On 05.09.2017, the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued a notice requiring shortlisted candidates to upload an e-dossier along with a "preference form" between 06.09.2017 and 20.09.2017.
Source reference: p. 4-5While the applicant uploaded his certificates, he failed to submit the preference form within the stipulated period.
Source reference: p. 5Consequently, he was provisionally selected for Post Code 66/13 (Delhi Jal Board).
Source reference: p. 5The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for appointment to Post Code 64/13 (NDMC), asserting that since he scored higher marks than the selected candidates in NDMC, he should have been allotted his preferred department despite his failure to submit the form.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the failure to submit a preference form within the stipulated time entitles a candidate to a "deemed preference" based on merit position for a specific post.
Source reference: p. 4 / p. 72. Whether the subsequent expression of preference or the occurrence of vacancies post-allocation creates an enforceable legal right for a candidate to seek a change in cadre or department.
Source reference: p. 7Law Applied
Clause 2 of the DSSSB Notice dated 05.09.2017, which stipulates that if a candidate fails to fill the preference form, they will be assigned posts based on vacancy availability as if no preference was filled.
Source reference: p. 4Establishment that a selected candidate has a right to be considered for appointment but no fundamental right to be allocated a particular cadre or state of their choice, as per A. Shainamol v. Union of India and Rajiv Yadav v. Union of India.
Source reference: p. 8Cadre allocation is an incidence of service and cannot be governed by considerations of hardship once the allocation policy is applied, as affirmed in Union of India v. Shri Raj Priy Singh.
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The Tribunal rejected the applicant's interpretation of Clause 2, noting that the selection process was finalized through post-wise select lists (Post Code 66/13 results declared on 18.10.2017 and 64/13 on 27.10.2017).
Source reference: p. 6Since the applicant failed to exercise his preference during the e-dossier window (06.09.2017–20.09.2017), he was rightly allocated based on vacancy availability.
Source reference: p. 5-6The court highlighted the applicant's inconsistent stands—first claiming no choice was sought, then noting in a grievance that he forgot to upload the form.
Source reference: p. 6The Tribunal emphasized that a selection process is not a "linear progression" where a candidate can step into a post vacated by another after the allocation is concluded; doing so would disturb the finality of the process.
Source reference: p. 7There is no statutory rule providing an enforceable right to a specific post once a fair allocation policy has been executed.
Source reference: p. 7-8Holding
The Tribunal held that the applicant had no legal right to claim the NDMC post after failing to submit his preference within the prescribed time.
Cadre allocation is not a matter of right and the applicant must be willing to serve in the cadre allocated per policy; the O.A. was dismissed being devoid of merits, and no costs were awarded.
Source reference: p. 8-9Original Court PDF
Pradeep KumarvsGovt. Of Nctd
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in