Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2162
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, J, Dr. Sumeet Jerath, A
Vikas – Appellant
Versus
M/o Labour – Respondent
O.A./1213/2018
Mr. Akshay, Mr. R. V. Sinha, Mr. A. S. Singh and Ms. Shriya Sharma for R-1
Qualifying marks in a selection process must be disclosed in advance; candidates cannot challenge the selection criteria after participating without objection.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Selection process for Enforcement Officers in EPFO - Applicant challenged exclusion from selection despite higher marks than selected candidates - Court emphasized that qualifying marks must be announced in advance and cannot be determined post-selection. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 8)
(B) Eligibility and Reservation - The applicant, a physically handicapped candidate, argued for consideration based on qualifying marks, which were not disclosed prior to the selection process. The court reiterated that candidates cannot challenge selection criteria after participating without objection. (Paras 4, 8, 9)
(C) Judicial Precedents - The court relied on various judgments establishing that candidates who participate in selection cannot later contest the process. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant participated in the selection for Enforcement Officers, scored higher than selected candidates, but was excluded due to undisclosed qualifying marks.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the applicant's claims and upheld the selection process as valid.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the qualifying marks and the applicant's exclusion despite higher scores.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that qualifying marks must be disclosed before the selection process, and candidates cannot challenge the process after participating.
Result: OA dismissed.
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs:-
"8 a) Quash and set aside the impugned result notice dated 15/12/2017 placed at Annexure A/1 to the extent the applicant has been wrongly excluded from selection and candidates with lesser marks have been recommended and are being appointed,
b) Direct the respondents to further consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Enforcement Officer/Accounts Officer in EPFO, Ministry of Labour and Employment.
c) Accord all consequential benefits
d) Award costs of the proceedings; and
e) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that pursuant to the advertisement to fill up 257 vacancies of Enforcement Officers in EPFO, the applicant applied under General category Physically Handicapped (PH). He participated in the written exam on 26.02.2017 where he was declared successful and was shortlisted for interview. He appeared in the interview on 12.09.2017 and his documents including PH certificate was also verified. However, he could not be selected.
According to the counsel for the applicant, vide result notice dated 15.12.2017 the candidates with lesser marks were selected and recommended for appointment and the applicant with a higher merit was ignored. Subsequently, through RTI the applicant got to know that he obtained 48.11 marks in the written test and 45 marks in the interview out of 100 i.e., 91.11 out of 200. Hence, he couldn’t qualify the interview. He alleged that the qualifying marks were never prescribed or announced to the candidates in advance and it is only by visiting the website of the UPSC the applicant came to know that for SC/ST/PH candidates the qualifying marks for the interview are 40 marks. He argued that the applicant obtained 45 marks in the interview which is above the qualifying marks and hence he is entitled to be considered for appointment. He also stated that as per law, qualifying marks have to be determined in advance and it should be duly announced to the candidates well in advance. Aggrieved, he preferred a representation on 28.02.2018 and later knocked the doors of this Tribunal through this OA.
3. Following grounds were raised by the counsel of the applicant to buttress his contentions :-
“(A) The impugned action of the respondents is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
B) The applicant is an eligible physically handicapped candidate and 21 posts were reserved for the PH category. The applicant has duly mentioned his PH category in the application form. The admit card issued by the respondent UPSC too incorporates the said fact.
C) The applicant has participated in the selection process. According to the RTI information supplied to the applicant, he has obtained 46.11 marks in the written examination and 45 marks in the interview. Upon his qualifying the written examination he was shortlisted for interview. His total score is 91.11 marks and candidates with lesser marks have been placed in the select list. The applicant has been wrongly excluded from recommendation/selection in spite of higher marks obtained by him.
(D) The applicant has been wrongly excluded from selection. Under RTI Act proceedings he has been informed that he did not qualify the interview. In this context, the applicant submits that the reason assigned towards applicant's rejection is illegal. The applicant submits that no qualifying mark, either in the written examination or in the interview, was prescribed. More so, there was no stipulation in the advertisement that there will be any qualifying mark at any stage of the selection process. It is thus submitted that once the advertisement did not contain any stipulation regarding qualif
