Provisional Shortlisting in Selection Process Confers No Vested Right to Appointment Absent Requisite Eligibility Qualifications

The applicant applied for the post of Junior System Engineer (RBA category) under the Prime Minister’s Package for Kashmiri Migrants pursuant to Advertisement No. 04 of 2017

He appeared for the written examination and his name featured at Serial No. 1 in the provisional select list for counseling and document verification

During verification on 11.07.2018, the Board raised an objection regarding his experience certificate

In the final select list issued on 17.07.2019, the applicant’s name was omitted, and private respondents 4 and 5 were selected

The applicant challenged this exclusion, alleging it was arbitrary and lacked notice

The respondents contended that upon scrutiny, the applicant was found ineligible as he lacked the requisite qualifications prescribed by the recruitment rules

1. Whether inclusion in a provisional select list for document verification confers a vested or indefeasible right to appointment

2. Whether the exclusion of a candidate found ineligible during document verification without prior notice violates the principles of natural justice

3. Whether the Tribunal can exercise judicial review to override the recruiting agency’s assessment of a candidate’s eligibility

The court applied the principle that a provisional list is merely a procedural step and does not create an enforceable right to appointment; candidates remains subject to verification of eligibility and qualifications

It relied on the doctrine of limited judicial review in recruitment matters, established that courts should not act as appellate authorities over expert recruiting agencies unless there is patent illegality or mala fides

the court noted the principle of audi alteram partem does not extend to compelling an authority to continue the candidature of a person who fails to meet objective eligibility criteria

the court took note of the Administrative Council's decision to withdraw certain inconclusive recruitment processes initiated prior to 31.10.2019

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s case rested entirely on the provisional list, which was explicitly for "counseling and verification" and did not signify final selection

The respondents clearly stated that the applicant lacked the "requisite qualification" for the post

Since the recruiting body is the competent authority to assess eligibility against the advertisement and recruitment rules, the Tribunal found no grounds to issue a mandamus for appointment

The Tribunal dismissed the argument regarding lack of notice, stating that the recruiting body is not required to treat provisional shortlisting as final when documents fail to establish eligibility

It further observed that the applicant failed to provide evidence to disprove the respondents' claim of ineligibility

the Tribunal noted that the recruitment process was from 2017 and re-opening it after several years would be inappropriate, especially given the government's decision to withdraw inconclusive historical recruitment

The Transfer Application was dismissed, and the selection of respondents 4 and 5 was upheld