Facts
The applicant, Shashi Kumar, participated in a recruitment process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category
Source reference: p. 1-2Despite securing a score of 126.68356 marks and qualifying all stages of the selection process, his category was changed to 'General' in the Final Scorecard dated 17.02.2026
Source reference: p. 2-3Consequently, his name was excluded from the Final Merit List/Notification dated 15.01.2026
Source reference: p. 2The applicant asserts that he possesses a valid EWS certificate dated 14.10.2024, issued in the prescribed format on or before the cut-off date
Source reference: p. 3-4He submitted a representation (Annexure-A/12) regarding this grievance, which remained pending with the respondents
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the respondents' action of changing the applicant's category from EWS to 'General' and his subsequent exclusion from the merit list was legally sustainable
Source reference: p. 22. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider and dispose of the applicant's pending representation regarding his category status and EWS certificate
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The Tribunal adjudicated the matter under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Source reference: p. 1The court applied the principle of administrative accountability, which requires public authorities to dispose of pending representations through "reasoned and speaking orders"
Source reference: p. 3the validity of category certificates (EWS) must be evaluated based on the prescribed format and the established cut-off dates of the recruitment process
Source reference: p. 3-4Reasoning
The Tribunal noted the applicant’s primary grievance that, despite qualifying all selection stages and possessing a valid EWS certificate dated 14.10.2024, his results were erroneously processed under the General category
Source reference: p. 3-4During the hearing, the applicant limited his prayer to seeking a time-bound disposal of his pending representation
Source reference: p. 3The Tribunal found this request reasonable and avoided a detailed merit-based adjudication at this stage.
Source reference: p. 3It reasoned that the competent authority must explain why the applicant’s name was missing from the final merit list despite his scores and examine the validity of the EWS certificate submitted before the cut-off
Source reference: p. 3-4Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by directing the respondents to decide the applicant's representation (Annexure-A/12) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days
The respondents were specifically instructed to take note of the EWS certificate dated 14.10.2024 while considering the case
Source reference: p. 3-4The Tribunal held that if the decision is favorable, consequential benefits must be accorded within an additional 30 days
Source reference: p. 3The applicant was granted liberty to challenge the reasoned order if he remains aggrieved
Source reference: p. 3All pending MAs were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Shashi KumarvsSTAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in