Mere participation in recruitment process confers no vested right to selection or appointment.

The Ministry of Railways issued Notification No. CEN 02/2019 for the post of Health and Malaria Inspector Grade III

The applicant, an OBC candidate, appeared for the Computer Based Test (CBT) and secured 56.46258 marks

The respondents shortlisted 22 candidates for Document Verification (DV) based on a policy of calling candidates equal to the number of vacancies plus 50% as standby

Through an RTI, the applicant learned his OBC rank was 9, while the last empanelled OBC candidate held rank 8

The OBC cut-off for standby candidates was 56.80272; the applicant’s marks fell below this threshold

The applicant sought a direction to the respondents to conduct a 2nd DV by lowering the merit list to fill alleged vacant seats, citing subsequent notifications regarding filling additional vacancies from standby lists

1. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to conduct a second round of Document Verification by lowering the merit cut-off to accommodate candidates below the initial standby list

2. Whether a candidate who fails to qualify for even the standby list acquires any vested right to appointment or further selection processes

The Tribunal applied the principle established in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, which mandates that mere participation in an interview or inclusion in a merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment

It further relied on Tej Pratap Pathak v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Appeal No. 2634/2013, affirming that appointment can be denied even to candidates in a selection list

The recruitment was governed by Para 13.10 of CEN-02/2019, which limits the standby pool to 50% over the notified vacancies

The Tribunal observed that the applicant failed to meet the merit criteria even for the standby list, as his marks (56.46258) were lower than the last shortlisted standby OBC candidate (56.80272)

While the applicant argued for a 2nd DV to fill vacancies, he failed to provide evidence of existing vacancies or demonstrate that the department had authorized the recruitment agency to club additional posts with the current cycle

The court reasoned that the respondents followed the prescribed procedure under Para 13.10 of the notification by calling 150% of the candidates relative to the vacancies

Since the applicant was at rank 9 and only 6 OBC candidates (including standby) were required for the 4 sanctioned posts, the court found no procedural irregularity

Consequently, the O.A. was dismissed as devoid of merit

No orders were made as to costs