Librarian Candidate With 100.25 Marks Could Not Claim Post Code 02/13 Vacancies Without Applying, CAT Rules

In brief

The question

Whether an applicant who applied for Librarian Post Code 69/10 could claim consideration against vacancies under Post Code 02/13 merely because the two post codes were covered by a common written examination.

The court held

The Tribunal held that the applicant had failed to establish an enforceable right to consideration for vacancies under Post Code 02/13. It found no sufficient ground to interfere with the order dated 5 July 2017 and dismissed the O.A.

It also directed

Pending applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The applicant, an OBC candidate, applied for Librarian Post Code 69/10 under Advertisement No. 02/2010. He did not establish that he had also applied for Post Code 02/13 under Advertisement No. 01/2013.

pp. 2–4

DSSSB conducted a common written examination for both post codes on 31 August 2014. The applicant obtained 100.25 marks and alleged that a candidate with 73 marks was selected under Post Code 02/13.

pp. 2–4

He challenged the respondents’ refusal to consider him for that post code, seeking quashing of the order dated 5 July 2017 and consideration for appointment.

pp. 2–4

The respondents maintained that he had applied only for Post Code 69/10 and that the original application form had been weeded out under the record-retention procedure.

pp. 4–5

02Issues

i.Whether an applicant who applied for Librarian Post Code 69/10 could claim consideration against vacancies under Post Code 02/13 merely because the two post codes were covered by a common written examination.

p. 5 · ¶ 5.1

ii.Whether the common examination and the applicant’s higher marks entitled him to be considered under Post Code 02/13 despite his failure to establish that he had applied for it.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 5.3–5.4

03Law Applied

A common examination for vacancies advertised under separate post codes does not, by itself, require a single consolidated merit list or entitle a candidate to consideration for vacancies for which the candidate did not apply; the recruitment advertisements, applicable rules and candidature conditions govern eligibility for consideration.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 5.3

Fair selection, comparative merit and equality of opportunity are recognised principles, reflected in the authorities cited by the applicant, including Tapan Neeraj v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Surendra Pratap Gautam v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Radhey Shyam Singh v. Union of India; however, those principles operate subject to the candidate first establishing entitlement to participate in the relevant selection.

p. 7 · ¶ 5.5

Articles 14 and 16 were invoked by the applicant, but the Tribunal did not identify or apply a separate statutory test under those provisions.

p. 3, 7

04Reasoning

The Tribunal found that the applicant had applied for Post Code 69/10 only and had not established that a separate application for Post Code 02/13 was unnecessary or that his first application covered both post codes.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 5.2

The common examination did not establish an undertaking by the respondents to consider candidates across both recruitment notifications.

p. 6 · ¶ 5.3

Accordingly, the applicant’s higher score and comparison with a selected candidate could not establish discrimination without first showing entitlement to consideration under Post Code 02/13.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 5.4

The Tribunal also declined to draw an adverse inference from the missing application form, accepting the respondents’ explanation that it had been weeded out under the applicable retention procedure and finding no evidence of improper destruction.

p. 8 · ¶ 5.7