Revised disability-suitability criteria cannot retrospectively exclude candidates who entered recruitment under notified conditions.

The applicant participated in the Combined Higher Secondary (10+2) Level Examination, 2018 (“CHSL-2018”), conducted pursuant to the notification dated 5 March 2019 for various posts, including Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant (Post Code P-41).

The notification identified Both Legs Affected (“BL”) under the Orthopaedic Handicap (“OH”) category as suitable for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant.

The applicant secured 107.3354 marks in Tier-I, 66 marks in Tier-II, cleared the Typing Test, and appeared for Document Verification on 9 July 2021.

He claimed an aggregate score of 173.2254 marks, higher than the last selected candidate’s score of 172.9392.

However, he was not selected because, after the recruitment process had commenced, the respondents relied upon the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities’ notification dated 4 January 2021 and the Staff Selection Commission’s letter dated 5 July 2021, under which BL was not treated as suitable for Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant.

The applicant challenged his exclusion and the final selection list.

The Tribunal had earlier directed that the last appointment to the post would remain subject to the outcome of the Original Application.

1. Whether the respondents could apply the revised suitability criteria excluding the BL category to the applicant after he had participated in the CHSL-2018 selection process under a notification that identified BL as suitable for Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration for appointment to Post Code P-41 on the basis of his merit, subject to his otherwise satisfying the eligibility and suitability requirements.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the terms of the CHSL-2018 recruitment notification dated 5 March 2019, particularly paragraph 4.1.2, which identified BL among the disability categories suitable for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant.

The Tribunal also considered the respondents’ reliance on the subsequent disability-suitability notification dated 4 January 2021 and SSC letter dated 5 July 2021, but held that a revised suitability criterion could not be retrospectively applied to exclude a candidate who had entered and substantially completed the selection process under the original notified conditions.

The governing principle was that the applicable eligibility and suitability conditions could not be altered to the applicant’s prejudice after the selection process had commenced and after he had established his merit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had participated in the examination on the basis of the 5 March 2019 notification, which expressly treated BL as suitable for the post in question.

He was provisionally considered for Post Code P-41, cleared every successive stage, and appeared for Document Verification before the respondents applied the revised suitability position.

Since the applicant had already undergone the selection process under the original conditions and had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate, the subsequent exclusion of BL candidates through the 4 January 2021 notification and 5 July 2021 communication amounted to impermissible retrospective application of a changed criterion.

The Tribunal therefore held that the respondents could not deny the applicant consideration for the same post merely by relying on a later suitability determination.

The Tribunal set aside the respondents’ action in not considering the applicant for Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant on the basis of the subsequently applied BL suitability restriction.

The respondents were directed to offer him appointment to the post if he was otherwise eligible and suitable and fell within the requisite merit on his own merit.

He was granted consequential benefits on a notional basis in accordance with the applicable rules.

The exercise was directed to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of the order.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.