Facts
The applicant, Sheetal, was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) on compassionate grounds on August 3, 2021.
Source reference: p.2, para 2She belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category and is a Person with Benchmark Disability (PwBD-OH).
Source reference: p.2, para 2She appeared in the Competitive Examination (CE-2024) for recruitment to the cadre of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) on August 25, 2024.
Source reference: p.2, para 3The result declared on November 13, 2024, showed her selected against a PwBD-SC (OH) vacancy for 2024.
Source reference: p.2, para 3She was allotted and posted as MTS, relinquished her GDS charge on November 21, 2024, and joined as MTS on November 28, 2024.
Source reference: p.3, para 4She worked and was paid salary for December 2024.
Source reference: p.3, para 4On December 27, 2024, Respondent No. 3 issued a memo informing her that her name was struck off from the record of HRO Ludhiana due to a revised result where her name "does not come in the result due to low merit in comparison to other candidates".
Source reference: p.3, para 5She was orally asked to rejoin as GDS.
Source reference: p.3, para 5Another applicant, Jatinder, also faced a similar situation.
Source reference: p.1, para 2The respondents submitted that after the initial result, certain PwBD candidates submitted representations alleging discrepancies, leading to the constitution of a Tabulation Committee to reassess results and the publication of a revised result on December 27, 2024.
Source reference: p.5, para 11In this revised list, candidates with higher marks were selected, and Sheetal's name was removed due to lower merit (52 marks).
Source reference: p.5, para 11The original result notification contained a stipulation (Clause 8) that the result could be revised if any mistake or ineligibility was discovered, or if changes in merit arose, and names could be deleted accordingly.
Source reference: p.5, para 13; p.10, para 25The applicant subsequently rejoined her original post as GDS on January 9, 2025.
Source reference: p.5, para 12Issues
1. Whether the respondents were justified in revising the result after its declaration and the applicant had joined and worked as MTS.
Source reference: p.8, para 21 (i)2. Whether cancellation of the applicant’s selection without notice and hearing is violative of principles of natural justice.
Source reference: p.8, para 21 (ii)3. Whether the respondents could lawfully adjust candidates against future vacancies and displace the applicant.
Source reference: p.8, para 21 (iii)4. Whether the impugned Memo dated December 27, 2024 (Annexure A-5) is sustainable in law.
Source reference: p.8, para 21 (iv)Law Applied
The court applied the principle that inclusion of a candidate's name in a selection list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, and public posts must strictly follow merit and prescribed procedures.
Source reference: p.6, para 14It also relied on the conditions stipulated in the original result notification, specifically Clause 8, which reserved the right of the respondents to modify the result in case of mistakes or changes in merit.
Source reference: p.10, para 25Furthermore, the court considered DoPT OM dated May 17, 2022, which provides procedures for inter se exchange and carry forward of reservation in promotion for PwBD candidates, despite the applicant's contention that it pertains to promotion and not fresh recruitment.
Source reference: p.6, para 16; p.12, para 28The court cited *Punjab SEB Vs. Malkiat Singh* (2005) 9 SCC 22.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The court found that the respondents were justified in revising the result because the original result notification (Annexure A-1) explicitly contained Clause 8, which allowed for revision in case of discrepancies or changes in merit.
Source reference: p.10, para 25The representations from several PwBD candidates regarding selection of lower merit candidates led to the constitution of a Tabulation Committee and the subsequent revised merit list.
Source reference: p.8-9, para 22Since the applicant, Sheetal, secured fewer marks (52) than other selected PwBD-OH candidates (e.g., Umesh with 78 marks and Navpreet Kaur with 88 marks), she fell below the merit threshold for the limited SC-OH (one vacancy for 2024).
Source reference: p.9-10, para 23Therefore, her cancellation was due to lower merit after a legitimate review.
Source reference: p.10, para 23Regarding natural justice, the court held that the applicants' acceptance of the original result, which included Clause 8, implied their acknowledgment of the respondents' right to review, thus making a separate notice for the revision unnecessary.
Source reference: p.10, para 26The cases relied upon by the applicants were distinguishable as they involved candidates who had completed significant service or training, unlike the present applicants.
Source reference: p.11-12, para 27The adjustment of candidates against future vacancies, like Mr. Gourav Bedi, was deemed justified under the DoPT OM dated May 17, 2022, as the recruitment was to the MTS cadre from eligible GDS against existing vacancies for 2023 and 2024, not a completely fresh recruitment.
Source reference: p.13-14, para 29Holding
The court held that the respondents were justified in revising the result due to discrepancies and the applicants' lower merit.
The cancellation of the applicant's selection without a separate notice or hearing was not violative of natural justice, given the explicit Clause 8 in the initial result notification.
Source reference: p.10, para 26; p.12, para 27The adjustment of candidates against future vacancies was also deemed lawful under the DoPT OM dated May 17, 2022.
Source reference: p.13-14, para 29Consequently, the impugned Memo dated December 27, 2024, was held to be legally sustainable.
Source reference: p.14, para 30Both Original Applications were dismissed.
Source reference: p.14, para 30Original Court PDF
O.A. No. 060/19/2025 & 060/28/2025
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in