Post-joining appointment cancellation for alleged ineligibility requires notice and a fair hearing.

AIIMS Bhubaneswar advertised three Psychiatric Social Worker (PSW) posts, requiring a relevant master’s degree and five years’ experience in vocational guidance and counselling in a psychiatric centre.

The applicant applied in the OBC (NCL) category, participated in the selection process, was selected, and joined on 26 April 2024.

AIIMS later cancelled his offer of appointment, alleging that his experience certificates did not establish the required five years’ experience by the applicable cut-off date and questioning a certificate submitted at joining.

The applicant challenged the cancellation, contending that it was made without notice or an opportunity to respond. He also disputed the cut-off date used to assess his experience.

An interim order stayed the cancellation and allowed him to continue working; the respondents’ challenge to that order was unsuccessful.

1. Whether AIIMS could cancel the applicant’s appointment after he had been selected and joined, without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

2. Whether the cancellation was sustainable where the respondents alleged an experience shortfall and questioned a certificate, but had not established fraud or misrepresentation through proper verification.

3. Whether the applicant’s experience was to be assessed by reference to the cut-off date relied upon by the respondents, or the closing date for the Phase-II application process.

The Tribunal stated that, after joining, the applicant’s service was governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, under which termination could be effected by the prescribed notice or payment in lieu; where the action was based on specific allegations or reasons, the employee had to be given an opportunity to be heard in accordance with natural justice.

It relied on the principle, discussed in Union of India v. Uzair Imran, 2023 INSC 901, that a candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment but is entitled to fair and non-discriminatory treatment, and that State action excluding a candidate must have a rational and justifiable basis.

The Tribunal also cited Union of India v. Pradeep Tomar, W.P.(C) No. 2529/2015, and Union of India v. Bikash Kuanar, Appeal (Civil) No. 4388 of 2006, in support of its approach to belated rejection and the assessment of a selection made after consideration of the candidate’s documents.

The respondents relied on M.V. Nair v. Union of India for the rule that eligibility is assessed by reference to the last date for receipt of applications; the Tribunal did not expressly resolve the competing cut-off-date arguments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had submitted his documents, undergone the selection process, received an offer, resigned from his previous employment, and joined AIIMS before the respondents raised the alleged discrepancy.

It accepted that the respondents could question the experience certificates, but held that their assertion that the later certificate had been “managed” or arranged was not established without proper verification and an opportunity for the applicant to respond.

Because the cancellation was based on an alleged deficiency and was made without a hearing, the Tribunal considered it procedurally unfair; it also noted that the respondents had not alleged or proved fraud or misrepresentation and had raised no performance concerns during the applicant’s service.

Although the applicant’s eligibility and the applicable cut-off date were disputed, the Tribunal’s decision rested principally on the manner in which the appointment was cancelled rather than an express determination of the experience calculation.

As the applicant had continued in the post under the interim order, it directed that he receive the consequential service benefits.

The OA was allowed, with costs made easy.