Tribunal Cannot Mandate Individual Result Declarations or Evidence Collection in Public Recruitment Exercises

The four applicants applied for the post of Primary Teacher (Music) under Advertisement No. 15/2022 issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS)

Following the recruitment process, the applicants found that their names were not included in the select list

They alleged that the respondents failed to declare a "consolidated" or "comprehensive" result and sought details of their individual marks through RTI applications, which they claimed yielded unsatisfactory responses

Some applicants also challenged a perceived disqualification based on their qualifications, asserting they held mandatory music credits in their degrees

The respondents placed on record evidence that PRT (Music) results had been uploaded on various Regional Office websites between February and March 2024

1. Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondents to declare a consolidated result and individual marks for the recruitment of Primary Teacher (Music) after the select lists have already been published

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to contingent reliefs, such as reservation of posts and appointment letters, when their names do not appear in the select list

The Court applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal

It relied heavily on the Supreme Court precedent in Commissioner, Delhi Police Anr. vs. Uttam Kumar (2026 INSC 314), which emphasizes that public employment opportunities are scarce and require candidates to show diligence rather than expecting exceptional treatment or rescheduling due to defaults

The court also applied the principles of judicial review, which restrict a Tribunal's mandate to examining the legality of the process rather than collecting evidence or acting as an appellate authority over competitive examination results

The Tribunal found that the respondents had already demonstrated the publication of results across various Regional Offices in early 2024

It reasoned that since the applicants were not included in the select list, they were essentially seeking a "fishing and roving" inquiry into their non-selection

The Tribunal held that it is not mandated to collect or examine evidence on behalf of unsuccessful candidates, as doing so for thousands of applicants would open a "Pandora’s box"

Furthermore, the court observed a "substantial delay and laches" in the applicants' approach to the Tribunal at a belated stage

Regarding the RTI grievances, the Tribunal noted that if responses were inadequate, the specific remedy lies under the provisions of the RTI Act, not via an Original Application for recruitment

The Tribunal concluded that granting the prayers would involve overstepping the scope of judicial review in recruitment matters and creating a "fresh cause of action" where none exists

It held that the specific prayer for a declaration of individual results could not be granted and that all contingent reliefs (prayers 2 to 5) were non-maintainable as they were dependent on future events

The applicants were granted liberty to avail other legal remedies in accordance with the law. All pending Miscellaneous Applications were also dismissed with no order as to costs