Recruitment: Failure to comply with procedural requirements leads to lawful candidature cancellation.

The applicant, Ankit Dhama, joined the Indian Army on October 13, 2003.

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police in 2023, allowing defense service employees retiring within one year of the application deadline to apply under the Commando Ex-Servicemen Category.

The applicant applied through proper channel with an assurance of being relieved by September 2024.

He received an offer of appointment on February 1, 2024.

The applicant was directed to report for codal formalities and document verification at various times: from January 25 to January 31, 2024; through an email on June 27, 2024; and via a notice on the Delhi Police official website from October 21 to October 29, 2024.

He failed to report on any of these occasions.

His inability to report was attributed to the implementation of the Agniveer Policy and restrictions on premature retirement, allowing him to retire only on January 31, 2025.

Consequently, his candidature was cancelled by an order dated January 28, 2025, due to non-reporting.

The applicant informed the Delhi Police on February 2, 2025, that he had retired but was then informed of the cancellation.

He submitted a representation on February 14, 2025, which included letters dated February 8, 2025, explaining his non-relieving from the Army.

This representation was rejected by the Delhi Police on March 27, 2025.

The applicant then filed the present Original Application (OA) seeking to quash the cancellation orders and direct his joining.

The advertisement's Para 5.9 states that "The persons serving in the Armed Forces of the Union... are permitted to apply for re-employment, one year before the completion of the specified terms of engagement... but shall not be permitted to leave the uniform until they complete the specified term of engagement in the Armed Forces of Union".

1. Whether the cancellation of the applicant’s candidature vide order dated January 28, 2025, for non-reporting and non-completion of codal formalities is arbitrary, illegal, or violative of the recruitment rules and prescribed procedure?

2. Whether the applicant’s failure to report within the stipulated timelines, allegedly due to non-relieving by the Indian Army, constitutes sufficient justification to direct the respondents to permit joining after completion of the recruitment process?

3. Whether the existence of alleged vacant posts creates any enforceable right in favour of the applicant for appointment despite non-compliance with recruitment requirements?

The court primarily applied Rule 9 of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980, and Standing Order No. HRD/04/2022, which govern direct recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police.

The advertisement for the recruitment, specifically Para 5.9, was central, stipulating that serving armed forces personnel applying for re-employment "shall not be permitted to leave the uniform until they complete the specified term of engagement in the Armed Forces of Union".

The Tribunal also acknowledged the legal principle that participation in a recruitment process is subject to the fulfillment of prescribed conditions within stipulated timeframes and that recruitment authorities cannot be compelled to keep selection processes open indefinitely or relax essential procedural requirements without enabling provisions.

Additionally, the principle that mere availability of vacancies does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, especially when candidature is cancelled per rules for non-compliance, was applied.

The court found that the applicant failed to report for codal formalities and document verification despite multiple opportunities and specific directions, including through email and public notices.

The applicant admitted non-reporting and chose not to send any intimation regarding compelling circumstances to the respondents.

Although the applicant attributed his inability to report to restrictions on premature retirement due to the Agniveer Policy, the recruitment advertisement (Para 5.9) explicitly stated that serving armed forces personnel could not leave service prematurely, even if selected for another job, until completing their full engagement period.

The court emphasized that events subsequent to a lawful cancellation, such as the applicant's eventual retirement on January 31, 2025, cannot retrospectively cure procedural lapses during the recruitment process.

The applicant's plea of non-receipt of the cancellation order was rejected as an afterthought due to the lack of specific challenge or contemporaneous representation.

The court distinguished the precedents cited by the applicant, noting that those cases involved timely communication of difficulties, which was absent here.

The mere availability of vacancies was deemed insufficient to create an enforceable right to appointment, as the applicant failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements.

The cancellation of the applicant's candidature was a consequence of his failure to comply with essential requirements of the recruitment process and was neither arbitrary nor illegal.

All issues were answered against the applicant.

Consequently, the present OA was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.