No vested right to appointment exists for candidates failing to meet revised cut-off marks post re-evaluation.

The applicant, an OBC category candidate, participated in the 2012 recruitment for the post of Constable (Driver) in the Delhi Police and secured 73 marks

He approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for appointment, relying on the precedent of Surendra Kumar v. Delhi Police (O.A. No. 1961/2014), where six candidates were appointed following a re-evaluation exercise

The respondents opposed the application, contending that the issue was settled by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 3520/2017, which set aside previous orders of the Tribunal that had granted relief to similarly situated candidates

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to appointment as Constable (Driver) based on re-evaluated marks if the revised cut-off remains higher than his score

2. Whether the protective principles established in Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar apply to candidates who did not qualify in either the initial or the revised merit list

3. Whether the applicant has a vested right to appointment in the absence of available vacancies

The Tribunal applied the Delhi High Court’s ruling in W.P.(C) No. 3520/2017, which distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar by noting that the latter was an exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution to protect candidates who were initially selected but subsequently ousted

It further relied on Manoj Manu v. Union of India, which held that the recruitment process culminates upon the exhaustion of notified vacancies and does not create a vested right for candidates beyond the merit list

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim was squarely covered by the High Court's decision regarding Sunil Kumar Yadav. In that instance, although the candidate's marks increased upon re-evaluation, the cut-off marks for the OBC category also increased (from 73 to 74), resulting in the candidate remaining outside the zone of selection

The Tribunal noted that the applicant, like Yadav, "never made the cut in the first place" and continued to fall short of the revised cut-off post-re-evaluation

The Tribunal emphasized the High Court’s finding that candidates who never qualified have no vested right to insist on appointment

Additionally, it was noted that the Commissioner of Police made a categorical statement that no vacancies remained to accommodate the applicant

Following the High Court's mandate, the Tribunal concluded that judicial directions for appointment cannot be issued where no vacancies exist and the candidate fails to qualify on merit. All pending Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed without costs