The principles of natural justice were violated as the applicant's candidature for the post was rejected without a fair hearing or substantiated reasoning.

ORDER

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of instant O.A, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following relief:

“to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the action of the respondents of not considering the candidature of the petitioner for selection to the post of Statistical Investigator Gr.-II which has been conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 10.01.2014 (Annexure P-7) despite of having qualified for the same.

It is further prayed that a writ in the nature of the mandamus directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner as Statistical Investigator Gr. II, may kindly be issued.”

2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are that the applicant possesses the educational qualification of M.Sc. (Statistics) and is fully eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II under the Central Government.

3. The Staff Selection Commission (SSC), respondent No. 2, issued an advertisement published in the Employment News dated 19.03.2011 inviting applications for various posts in Central Government Departments, including the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II. The recruitment process was to be conducted through the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2011, consisting of a three-tier system — Tier-I and Tier-II written objective-type examinations, followed by Computer Proficiency Test/Interview/Skill Test (Tier-III).

4. The advertisement (Annexure P-1) specifically mentioned under Note II that selected candidates would be liable to serve anywhere in India, and under Note III, it was provided that candidates applying for the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II must clearly indicate such preference in the application form and confirm possession of the requisite educational qualification.

5. The essential qualification prescribed for the post was a Bachelor’s Degree with Statistics as one of the main subjects. Being fully eligible and holding both Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees in Statistics, the applicant applied for the said post under Group-B classification. The applicant appeared in all three tiers of the examination, including the additional paper in Statistics (Paper-III), which was required only for candidates who had opted for the posts of Statistical Investigator and Compiler. Having opted for Statistical Investigator, she was allowed to appear in the said paper, qualified in all the tiers, and was subsequently called for interview held on 09.11.2011. During the interview, she was required to submit a proforma containing post and state preferences, which she duly filled and submitted in the Regional/Sub-Regional Office of SSC.

6. The result for the post of Statistical Investigator was declared on 30.03.2012, but the applicant’s name was not included. Aggrieved thereby, she sought information under the Right to Information Act , 2005, vide application dated 26.04.2012. However, the Commission failed to provide any response, compelling her to submit a second application dated 21.05.2012 and a reminder thereafter (Annexure P-2). The Commission after a long delay furnished a vague reply vide letter dated 25.06.2012, stating that the information sought was available on its website (Annexure P-3). Despite her efforts, the applicant could not trace the relevant information online. Thereafter the applicant served a legal notice upon the respondents asserting that she had qualified all stages of the examination and interview, yet her candidature was unjustly rejected (Annexure P-4).

7. In response, the SSC vide letter dated 21.02.2013 (Annexure P-5) stated that her candidature was not considered on the ground that she had not submitted detailed post and state preferences, which were to be accepted till the time of interview. It was further mentioned that the matter had been