Respondents directed to consider notional seniority and consequential benefits according to merit and applicable recruitment rules.

The Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement in March 2023 for recruitment to various Selection Posts, including the post of JE (Q&C). The applicant, claiming eligibility under the Scheduled Tribe category, applied for the post, appeared in the examination held on 27 June 2023, and was declared qualified on 14 September 2023 for Document Verification (“DV”).

His candidature was subsequently included in the tentative Equivalent Qualification (“EQ”) Reject List for non-submission of his Class X/Matriculation certificate. He submitted the certificate along with a clarification dated 18 June 2024 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, and a representation dated 25 June 2024.

Despite this, his candidature was included in the final rejection list dated 14 October 2024.

During the pendency of the Original Application, the respondents undertook a revised scrutiny process and issued a revised Final OK/Reject List dated 21 November 2024, accepting the applicant’s candidature and permitting him to proceed in the recruitment process.

An E-Admit Card for DV scheduled on 3 March 2025 was also issued.

The applicant subsequently joined service and limited his request to consideration of consequential benefits, including seniority, on a notional basis.

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s candidature in the final list dated 14 October 2024, despite his submission of the Matriculation certificate and clarification, was legally sustainable.

Whether, after accepting the applicant’s candidature upon revised scrutiny and permitting him to participate in the further recruitment process, the applicant was entitled to consideration of consequential benefits, including notional seniority, in accordance with his merit and applicable rules.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative recruitment authority must consider a candidate’s eligibility documents fairly and in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and the terms of the advertisement.

Where the authority subsequently rectifies an erroneous rejection and restores the candidate’s eligibility, the candidate’s claim to consequential benefits must be examined on the basis of merit, the applicable service/recruitment rules, and parity with similarly situated candidates. Such benefits are not automatic and remain subject to fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had themselves admitted that the applicant’s grievance had been redressed through the revised scrutiny process. His candidature was accepted, he was declared eligible for the further stages of recruitment, and an E-Admit Card for DV was issued.

Consequently, the challenge to the rejection list dated 14 October 2024 no longer survived.

Since the applicant had joined service and sought only consideration of consequential benefits, the Tribunal did not itself grant retrospective appointment, arrears of pay, or seniority.

Instead, it directed the respondents to assess his entitlement by applying his merit position, the applicable recruitment rules, and the treatment accorded to similarly situated candidates.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s grievance regarding rejection of his candidature stood redressed because the respondents had accepted his candidature upon re-scrutiny and permitted him to proceed in the recruitment process.

The respondents were directed to consider, on a notional basis, his claim for consequential benefits, including fixation of seniority and other admissible benefits, in accordance with his merit, the applicable rules, and the position of similarly situated candidates.

A reasoned and speaking order was required to be passed within 30 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The consideration was expressly made subject to the applicant fulfilling all requisite conditions under the applicable rules.

The pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.