Post-selection cancellation carrying adverse findings requires prior notice and hearing under natural justice.

AIIMS, Bhubaneswar issued a notification dated 1 July 2023 for recruitment to the post of CSSD Technician in Pay Level 6. The applicant participated in the selection process, underwent document verification, and was issued an offer of appointment dated 30 October 2024.

He submitted his joining report on 10 December 2024 and claimed that he was assigned an identity card and entered into the biometric system.

By order dated 17 February 2025, the respondents cancelled his candidature and offer of appointment on the grounds that: (i) his experience certificate from King Abdullah Medical City, Saudi Arabia, did not specify the hospital’s bed strength; (ii) his employment periods in Saudi Arabia and AIIMS, Bhopal appeared to overlap by nine days; and (iii) his earlier appointment at AIIMS, Bhopal had been terminated for producing a fabricated experience certificate.

The applicant contended that the Saudi hospital had 500 beds, that the apparent overlap was attributable to sanctioned leave taken before joining AIIMS, Bhopal, and that the cancellation was made without notice or hearing.

The respondents argued that the applicant’s joining had never been accepted, that the appointment was provisional, and that he did not satisfy the mandatory experience requirement of working in a hospital having at least 200 beds.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not produced evidence of salary payment or formal acceptance of his joining report, although the respondents had not effectively controverted the evidence regarding the hospital’s 500-bed capacity or the explanation for the nine-day overlap.

1. Whether the respondents could cancel the applicant’s candidature and offer of appointment after his selection, document verification, and submission of joining report without issuing notice or providing an opportunity of hearing?

2. Whether the grounds relied upon by the respondents—absence of bed-strength particulars, the alleged nine-day employment overlap, and the applicant’s earlier termination from AIIMS, Bhopal—validly justified cancellation of his appointment?

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement/appointment, and whether he was entitled to retrospective service and financial benefits from the date of his original joining report?

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule that an administrative order having civil consequences must be preceded by disclosure of the adverse material and a reasonable opportunity to respond.

It relied on Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0277/1963, for the principle that an order carrying stigma or punitive consequences cannot be treated as a simple discharge without following the applicable safeguards.

It further relied on Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. v. Kumari Chittra Srivastava, (1970) 1 SCC 121, and related authorities for the requirement of a hearing before an adverse order with civil consequences.

Under Article 14, State action in public employment must be rational, fair, reasoned, and non-arbitrary; a candidate who has been permitted to participate in the selection process and has been placed within the range of appointment has at least a limited right to fair and non-discriminatory treatment, as explained in Union of India v. Uzair Imran & Ors., 2023 INSC 901.

The Tribunal also referred to the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, although the decision principally rested on fairness, non-arbitrariness, and natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had successfully crossed the stages of application scrutiny, selection, document verification, and issuance of an appointment offer. Even if he had no indefeasible right to appointment, the respondents were not entitled to exclude him arbitrarily after permitting him to complete the selection process.

The evidence produced by the applicant showing that King Abdullah Medical City had 500 beds was not rebutted; therefore, the respondents’ objection based on the absence of bed-strength details could not be sustained.

The applicant’s explanation that the nine-day overlap resulted from sanctioned leave before his joining at AIIMS, Bhopal was also not effectively challenged, and the respondents failed to conduct a proper verification or address that explanation while rejecting his representation.

The earlier termination from AIIMS, Bhopal was not treated as a valid disqualification because the termination order did not impose any bar against future Government or AIIMS employment, nor did the recruitment advertisement prescribe such termination as a disqualifying condition. The applicant had also not relied upon the allegedly fabricated certificate for the present selection.

Since the cancellation order was stigmatic in substance and was passed without notice or hearing, it violated natural justice and the requirement of fair administrative action under Article 14.

However, because the applicant could not establish that his joining had been formally accepted, that he had actually worked, or that he had received salary, the Tribunal declined to grant retrospective continuity or consequential monetary benefits.

The impugned order dated 17 February 2025, and the consequential rejection of the applicant’s representation, were quashed.

The respondents were directed to permit the applicant to join as CSSD Technician at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar within 30 days from receipt of the order.

The prayer for deemed continuity from the date of the original joining report and for consequential service and financial benefits was rejected, since the applicant had not shown that he had actually worked or received salary during the intervening period.

The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the OA was disposed of along with any pending miscellaneous application.