Provisional eligibility in recruitment confers no vested right to appointment or regularization of contractual service.

The applicant served as Guest Faculty (2003) and was later appointed as Assistant Professor on a contractual basis (2008) at the National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT)

Despite several extensions, her services were terminated effective 30.06.2020 due to alleged performance deficiencies, negative student feedback (92.4% negative remarks), and behavioral issues

The applicant previously challenged her disengagement and sought regularization in OA 12/2021 and OA 06/2022, both of which resulted in findings against her

In 2022, she applied for the post of Professor under a new recruitment notification and was declared "provisionally eligible" for the interview stage

She filed the present application seeking regularization of her services from 2003 and a direction for appointment to the regular post of Professor, alleging discrimination and arbitrary exclusion from the final selection

1. Whether the declaration of "provisional eligibility" in a recruitment process confers a legal right upon the applicant to be appointed to the post of Professor

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization of service from 2003 despite a documented history of performance issues and the dismissal of prior litigations on the same grounds

The court primarily applied the principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India regarding equality of opportunity in public employment and non-discrimination

It relied on the doctrine that "provisional eligibility" represents a preliminary screening stage and does not constitute a final selection or a vested right to appointment

The court also adhered to the selection criteria approved by the Board of Governors of NIFT, which mandated a weighted evaluation: Presentation (30%), Interview (30%), and Academic Work/Research (40%)

Additionally, the principle of finality of administrative and judicial findings regarding performance was applied to the applicant’s prior failed attempts at regularization

The Tribunal observed that the applicant's claim for regularization had already been adjudicated and dismissed in OA 06/2022, which confirmed that her contract non-renewal was justified by poor teaching quality, lack of empathy for students, and unauthorized foreign travel

Regarding the new claim for appointment as Professor, the Tribunal clarified that the applicant's "provisional eligibility" was merely a status allowing her to participate in the interview process

The court found that the respondents followed a structured, merit-based selection process involving specific weightage for presentations and interviews

The applicant failed to clear this final assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant provided no evidence of bias or procedural irregularity to overcome the fact that she did not meet the established merit criteria for the final list

Consequently, her lengthy service, being contractual and performance-deficient, did not entitle her to the relief sought

It ruled that the selection process for the post of Professor was conducted lawfully and the applicant's provisional status did not guarantee employment

The prayer for regularization was rejected as a repetitive attempt to litigate issues already decided in previous proceedings

No order as to costs was made