Post Preference Exercised at Document Verification is Final and Binding Barring Reallocation After Merit-Based Allotment

The applicant participated in the Combined Higher Secondary Level (CHSLE) Examination, 2017, scoring 227.5 marks in the OBC category.

Based on his merit and preferences, he was allotted the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Ministry of Information Broadcasting (Code L-32).

The applicant, already serving in the CRPF with a higher Grade Pay, sought reallocation to the Department of Posts (Code P-47), which offers a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-, arguing that candidates with lower marks (e.g., 208) were allotted that department.

He previously filed O.A. No. 1166/2020, resulting in a speaking order dated 04.05.2021 that rejected his claim.

Subsequently, the Ministry of Information Broadcasting cancelled his candidature on 20.07.2022 due to his failure to join.

1. Whether a candidate has a legal right to seek reallocation of a department after the final selection process if the initial allotment was made strictly according to their own preference and merit.

2. Whether the allocation of a lower-ranked candidate to a specific department (carrying a higher Grade Pay) constitutes arbitrariness if the higher-ranked candidate had prioritized a different department in their preference list.

Para 18 mandates that preferences for Posts/Ministries exercised at the time of document verification are final and no changes are permissible thereafter.

Para 21 establishes that the Commission’s decision regarding the allotment of posts and organizations is final and binding.

The court also applied the doctrine of estoppel, holding that once a candidate consciously exercises a preference, they are barred from challenging the outcome if it aligns with that preference.

The Tribunal found that the allocation process was transparent and rule-bound.

In his application, the applicant had placed the Ministry of Information Broadcasting (L-32) as his 2nd preference, while the Department of Posts (P-47) was placed lower in his list.

Since a vacancy was available in his higher-preferred department (L-32), the SSC correctly allocated him there in accordance with merit-cum-preference rules.

The Tribunal held that a candidate cannot claim a lower-preferred post simply because it is discovered later to be more advantageous (e.g., higher Grade Pay).

Regarding the applicant's claim that lower-ranked candidates got the Department of Posts, the court clarified that allocation is a combined function of merit, preference, and vacancy availability; those candidates likely placed the Department of Posts as a higher priority than the applicant did.

The precedent cited by the applicant (Amartya Vashisht v. SSC) was distinguished as it involved procedural irregularities not present here.

The Tribunal upheld the speaking order dated 04.05.2021 and the cancellation notice dated 20.07.2022. The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit.