Selection Process Lacking Objective Assessment and Reasoned Findings for Candidate Rejection Must Be Re-Evaluated

The applicant, a 26-year-old meritorious sportsperson in Athletics (110m Hurdles), applied for the post of Tax Assistant under the sports quota pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.03.2019

Although the applicant was shortlisted for the event, he was not selected in the final result.

The respondents contended that while 18 vacancies for Tax Assistant were filled based on merit and preference, no eligible candidate was found for the "Male 110 Mtrs. Hurdles" category, leading them to divert that specific vacancy to other games/players under Clause 7 of the advertisement

The applicant challenged this non-selection, alleging that he fulfilled all eligibility norms and that the respondents arbitrarily altered selection conditions

1. Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily by diverting the vacancy for the Male 110m Hurdles category on the grounds of "no candidate found eligible" despite the applicant being shortlisted

2. Whether the Selection Committee provided sufficient reasons for the non-suitability of the applicant in his specific sports category

The court applied the sports eligibility criteria stipulated in Para 1 of O.M. No. 14015/1/76-Estt. (D) dated August 1980 and subsequent O.M.s dated 1985, 1991, and 2009, which prioritize players representing the country or state in National/International competitions

It further emphasized the constitutional standards of objective assessment, proportionality, and the judicious exercise of discretion in public recruitment

The Tribunal examined the original records of the Screening Committee and found that while the committee recorded "No candidate found eligible" for the Male 110m Hurdles category (allowing for the diversion of the post to other games), it failed to assign any specific reasons for this finding

The Tribunal noted a discrepancy: while other categories had assigned reasons for selection or rejection, such reasons were "conspicuously absent" for the 110m Hurdles

the court observed that the applicant possessed the requisite educational qualifications and sports certifications (including a certificate from the National Institute of Sports, Patiala) which did not appear to have been duly considered during the assessment of his suitability

Consequently, the decision-making process was found to lack the necessary transparency and objective assessment required for valid discretionary administrative action

The Original Application was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to re-examine the applicant’s case by constituting an appropriate Selection Committee within two months

The court ordered that if the applicant is found otherwise eligible upon re-assessment, he shall be suitably adjusted against future vacancies with appropriate consequential orders

No order as to costs was made