Mere Allegations of Ineligibility Without Cogent Evidence Cannot Warrant Judicial Interference in Selection Processes

The applicant, holding an M.D.S. in Prosthodontics, challenged the final selection list (Notification dated 21.02.2026) issued by Respondent No. 3 for the post of Registrar/Tutor.

The applicant was placed at Serial No. 2 (waiting list), while Respondent No. 6 was selected at Serial No. 1.

The applicant alleged that Respondent No. 6 was ineligible because he was already employed as a Senior Lecturer at Rama Dental College, Kanpur, in violation of the advertisement’s eligibility conditions.

The applicant admitted to seeking further evidence via an RTI application which was still pending at the time of the hearing.

1. Whether the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 6 were arbitrary, illegal, or in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution due to alleged ineligibility.

2. Whether the Original Application was premature given the lack of documentary evidence and pending RTI queries.

The Tribunal applied the fundamental principle of administrative law that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to substantiate allegations of illegality or procedural irregularity with cogent evidence.

The court relied on the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 regarding fairness in public employment, noting that judicial interference in selection processes requires a prima facie showing of arbitrariness or violation of prescribed eligibility criteria.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide any documentary material to support the claim that Category Respondent No. 6 was ineligible.

The court noted that the applicant's own submission—that he was still awaiting RTI responses—constituted an admission that the petition was based on "unsubstantiated assertions" and "assumptions".

The Tribunal determined that there was no cause of action for judicial interference at this stage, as the "bald assertions" in the pleadings did not meet the evidentiary threshold required to overturn a formal selection process.

The Tribunal directed the official respondents to consider and decide upon the applicant's pending representation (Annexure A-7) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks; the applicant was granted liberty to seek further legal remedies should he remain aggrieved following the respondents' consideration order.