Non-notification of sub-discipline vacancies is not arbitrary absent existing sanctioned posts in that specific sub-discipline.

The petitioner, holding a Diploma in Automobile Engineering, applied for the post of Chargeman (Technical) under the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2016-17 at Vehicle Factory Jabalpur.

The Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) had directed factories to fill 25% of vacancies, ensuring sub-disciplines (e.g., Automobile, IT) were notified separately if vacancies existed.

The Vehicle Factory Jabalpur issued a circular for 158 posts but did not notify any vacancy for the "Automobile" sub-discipline.

Consequently, the petitioner’s candidature was rejected on 29.08.2016 and 15.11.2016 on the ground that no Automobile vacancies were published.

After several rounds of litigation in the High Court and a subsequent transfer of jurisdiction, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the petitioner’s Original Application (O.A. No. 585/2017) on 30.01.2026.

The petitioner challenged the CAT's order via this Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227.

1. Whether the non-notification of vacancies in the Automobile sub-discipline was in contravention of the OFB’s mandatory directions dated 08.07.2016.

2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidature while appointing a candidate with a Diploma in Tool and Die Making constituted discriminatory treatment under Articles 14 and 16.

3. Whether the High Court, under Article 227, should interfere with the Tribunal’s finding of fact regarding vacancy availability.

The court applied the principles of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which restricts interference to cases of jurisdictional error or flagrant disregard of law, as established in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329.

Interpretation of Para 2(iv) of the OFB letter dated 08.07.2016, which requires sub-discipline-wise notification only if specific vacancies exist.

A candidate cannot claim a right to be considered for a post that was never sanctioned or notified for a specific recruitment year.

The Court reasoned that Para 2(iv) of the OFB letter was not a mandate to create vacancies in every sub-discipline, but a procedural requirement to notify them if they existed.

Since Vehicle Factory Jabalpur had no sanctioned vacancies for the Automobile sub-discipline in 2016-17, the omission was factual and not arbitrary.

Regarding the 2020 notification cited by the petitioner, the Court held it was a prospective policy change and did not prove the existence of vacancies in 2016.

On the allegation of discrimination regarding Respondent No. 4, the Court found the situations non-comparable: Respondent No. 4 was selected against a general Mechanical vacancy, whereas the petitioner applied for the Automobile sub-discipline for which no post existed at that specific factory.

Under Article 227, the Court declined to re-appreciate the Tribunal’s factual findings, noting that the Tribunal’s decision was well-reasoned and lacked perversity.

The High Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Tribunal’s order, noting that interim reliefs previously granted did not create any vested rights.