Full Bench: NIC Scientist candidates need eligibility re-check, not fresh interviews, after selection process is completed

The applicants were included in the provisional select list issued on 15 March 2024 for Scientist-D posts following screening tests, academic evaluation, document verification and interviews under Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2.

After reviewing candidates’ physical dossiers, the respondents concluded that many candidates did not meet the prescribed eligibility requirements and cancelled the recruitment for Scientist-C and Scientist-D posts on 25 February 2025.

In related proceedings, the Principal Bench had directed that certain remaining candidates be re-interviewed and their eligibility reassessed by an independent committee, while the Chennai Bench directed completion of the recruitment without a fresh interview, subject to fulfilment of eligibility requirements.

The Division Bench referred the resulting question to the Full Bench.

Whether candidates in the provisional select list who had already undergone an interview must be re-interviewed, or whether their eligibility may be reassessed against the Recruitment Rules and advertisement without a fresh interview.

Whether the direction in the Chennai Bench’s order to proceed without a fresh interview correctly states the law, in light of the earlier Principal Bench direction requiring re-interviews.

Clause 2.1 and Clauses 5 and 5.2 of Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 required candidates for Scientist-C and Scientist-D posts to meet specified educational and experience requirements and prescribed a three-stage selection process: screening test, evaluation of academic records, and interview; document verification was to take place before interview.

Eligibility must therefore be assessed under the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement, and an appointment cannot be made to a candidate who does not satisfy those requirements.

Under Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu, (2003) 7 SCC 285, cancellation of an entire selection is unjustified absent concrete findings of pervasive infirmities that undermine the process as a whole, where tainted selections can be separated from valid ones.

District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, recognises that an appointee’s qualifications may be scrutinised before appointment and that advertised qualifications must be enforced.

The Full Bench also noted the rule against retrospectively changing selection criteria, as discussed in the earlier Principal Bench decision with reference to K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512.

The respondents’ concern was that some candidates might not satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria; it was not that the applicants had committed any interview-related irregularity or that the interviews themselves were tainted.

The Full Bench held that this concern warranted scrutiny of candidates’ qualifications and experience under the existing Recruitment Rules and advertisement, but did not justify requiring candidates who had already been interviewed to undergo a fresh interview.

It approved the Chennai Bench’s approach, which made appointments conditional on fulfilment of the applicable eligibility requirements, and rejected the contrary re-interview direction in the earlier Principal Bench order.

It approved the Chennai Bench’s direction to complete the recruitment without a fresh interview and to issue appointment orders to eligible candidates, subject to compliance with the Recruitment Rules and advertisement.

The reference was answered accordingly, and the Original Applications were returned to the Division Bench for hearing as per roster.