Participation in selection with knowledge of revised vacancies estops candidates from subsequently challenging the reduction of posts.

The applicant, an OBC candidate, applied for the posts of Draughtsman Grade-III (Post Code 07/12) and Grade-II (Post Code 08/12) following Advertisement No. 02/2012 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)

He appeared for the examination in 2017 and was provisionally shortlisted for the e-dossier stage for Post Code 07/12 after securing 70.75 marks

However, the DSSSB had issued a corrigendum on 09.04.2013—prior to the examination—reducing the vacancies for Draughtsman Grade-III to zero

This reduction was based on a communication from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) following its trifurcation and the subsequent abolition of certain posts

Consequently, the DSSSB withdrawn the selection process for Post Code 07/12 via notice dated 13.07.2018

The applicant challenged the 2013 corrigendum and the withdrawal of selection in 2019, alleging arbitrariness and "changing the rules of the game"

1. Whether the challenge to the corrigendum dated 09.04.2013 is barred by the principle of limitation and estoppel

2. Whether the reduction of vacancies to nil and the subsequent withdrawal of the recruitment process were arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

3. Whether the provisional shortlisting for submission of an e-dossier confers an indefeasible right to appointment

The Tribunal applied the principles of administrative law regarding recruitment, specifically that the State must provide justifiable reasons for not filling advertised vacancies as per Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway and R.S. Mittal v. Union of India.

The doctrine of estoppel, where a candidate who participates in a selection process with knowledge of its revised terms cannot later challenge those terms

The principle that the inclusion of a candidate's name in a select list/provisional list does not confer an absolute right to appointment

The Tribunal found that the challenge to the 2013 corrigendum was raised after an unexplained delay of over five years, rendering it barred by limitation

Furthermore, the applicant was aware of the revised vacancy position when he participated in the 2017 examination, thus estopping him from challenging the reduction

On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the reduction of vacancies was a result of the MCD's trifurcation and the restructuring of posts, which constitutes a valid administrative exigency rather than arbitrary action

Regarding Post Code 08/12 (Grade-II), the applicant failed to secure selection as the vacancies were limited to the Unreserved category, and his merit did not qualify him for those posts

The Tribunal concluded that since the vacancies for Grade-III were abolished by the competent authority before finalization, no right to appointment could accrue to the applicant

It held that the respondents' actions were based on administrative records and that the applicant had no indefeasible right to appointment, especially since the vacancies ceased to exist due to policy-based restructuring

No order as to costs was made