Proposed GDS Recruit Loses Appointment Bid As CAT Upholds Hiring Cancellation To Correct 29-Post Open-Category Roster Excess

The respondents issued a notification for a General-category Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDS BPM) post at Hantla.

After the applicant was selected, he received a provisional proposal for appointment and completed the requested formalities, but no appointment order was issued.

During the engagement process, the respondents found that the General-category vacancies had been notified in excess of the permissible roster representation. They cancelled the notification on 4 March 2015 and, after revising the roster, issued a fresh notification for an ST roster point.

The applicant challenged the cancellation and sought appointment.

1. Whether the applicant acquired an enforceable right to appointment through his selection and provisional offer.

2. Whether the respondents could cancel the notification to correct roster errors and protect reserved-category representation.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to a show-cause notice before the cancellation.

Under Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, and State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 1 SCC 220, selection or inclusion in a select list does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to appointment; a decision not to fill vacancies must, however, be made in good faith and for appropriate reasons.

The Tribunal also relied on State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha, 2025 INSC 334, for the principle that a recruitment process may be scrapped in good faith where systemic irregularities taint the process, and that empanelment does not create a vested right to public appointment.

The respondents relied on Postal Directorate instructions No. 19-11/97-ED & TRG dated 27 November 1997, para 4(vi), concerning the applicable reservation ceiling and roster.

The Tribunal further held that, because the applicant had not been appointed, no show-cause notice under the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 was required before cancelling the notification.

The Tribunal found that the original notification had been issued despite excess General-category representation, contrary to the applicable roster instructions.

The cancellation was therefore a corrective measure intended to reconcile the roster and protect reserved-category representation; the Tribunal treated the resulting fresh notification for an ST roster point as consistent with that purpose.

Since the applicant had received only a provisional offer and had never been appointed, his selection did not give him a vested right to appointment, nor did the cancellation require a show-cause notice under the GDS Rules.

It dismissed the Original Application for lack of merit, with no order as to costs.