Inadvertent administrative errors in reservation rosters do not confer a vested right to appointment over higher-merit candidates.

The applicant, an Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) candidate with 45% disability, applied for the post of PGT (English) under Advertisement No. 14 issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS)

He secured 60.77 marks but was placed in the reserve panel

While the total vacancies were revised upward from 55 to 71, the respondents did not correspondingly increase the vacancies for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD)

Two PwBD vacancies (one OH and one VH) were filled from the main panel

The applicant alleged that the respondents failed to maintain the mandatory 100-point roster prescribed by the Government of India and that three vacancies should have been reserved for PwBD candidates

The respondents admitted to an inadvertent failure to increase the PwBD quota but argued that another candidate in the Visually Handicapped (VH) category secured higher marks (61.63) and would have a superior claim to any additional vacancy

1. Whether the respondents' failure to strictly maintain the 100-point roster and increase PwBD vacancies following the revision of total seats rendered the selection process illegal

2. Whether an OH candidate can claim precedence over a VH candidate with higher marks based on a subjective assessment of "suitability" for a specific teaching post

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to appointment based on the respondents' admission of an inadvertent error in earmarking vacancies

Office Memorandum (OM) No. 36035/02/2017-Estt(Res) dated 15.01.2018, which mandates a 4% reservation for PwBD in direct recruitment, subdivided into 1% each for specific categories including blindness/low vision (VH) and locomotor disability (OH)

Maintenance of Rosters (Clause 7), which requires a 100-point vacancy-based roster where points 1, 26, 51, and 76 are earmarked for PwBD

Negative Equality under Article 14, which establishes that a party cannot claim the benefit of an illegal or erroneous act committed by the state in another instance

The Tribunal observed that while the OM requires a 4% reservation, it specifically earmarks 1% for each distinct category of disability

The court rejected the applicant's contention that OH candidates are "more suitable" for teaching English than VH candidates, noting that suitability is a statutory determination made by the Head of the Establishment based on the nature of the post and representation levels, not a subjective preference

The Tribunal found that even if the respondents had correctly increased the PwBD vacancies to three, the applicant would not have been the beneficiary because a VH category candidate in the reserve panel had secured higher marks (61.63) than the applicant (60.77)

The court reasoned that the applicant could not claim a vested right to appointment based on the respondents' "inadvertent omission" to increase seats, as the roster and merit within the PwBD categories would still favor higher-scoring candidates

The court concluded that the applicant could not bypass the merit of higher-scoring candidates in other disability sub-categories, nor could he invoke the principle of negative equality to benefit from a procedural error

The Tribunal issued a "Note of Caution," directing the respondents to exercise due diligence in the future to ensure the accurate maintenance and operation of roster points for PwBD candidates during vacancy revisions