A recruitment process cannot dismiss candidates based solely on inconclusive expert opinions without granting procedural fairness, highlighting the importance of societal norms regarding name discrepancies.

ORDER

(By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K P Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

“(i) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing the orders impugned dated 16.10.2024 and 26.03.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. A-1 to this O.A.) with compilation No. I.

(ii) To issue an order or direction, in the suitable nature, directing the respondent department to issue the panel list against the notified post of Chief Law Assistant for the ST category pursuant to notification dated 23.02.2019 and further direct the respondent no issue an offer of an appointment to the applicant within stipulated period of time which may specified by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

(iii) To issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award costs.”

3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant challenging the orders dated 16.10.2024 and 26.03.2024 passed by the respondent no 2 thereby declining the issuance of offer of appointment to the applicant on the post of Chief Law Assistant which the applicant claims to have qualified for. The applicant who belongs to the ST category has also sought direction to the respondents to issue the panel list against the notified post of Chief Law Assistant for the ST category pursuant to the notification dated 23.02.2019 and accordingly issue offer of appointment in this regard.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had applied for the post of Chief Law Assistant against the Employment Notice (CEN) No. 03/2019 dated 23.02.2019 against Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. His application form was accepted and roll number for written examination was issued. The applicant appeared in the written examination and on her being successful in it, she was permitted to appear for document verification. The applicant appeared for document verification on 05.07.2022. Some query was raised during the document verification regarding the prefix used against the name of the applicant i.e., Kum. And Ms. It is further argued that the aforesaid query was clarified by the applicant on the basis of certificate issued by the competent authority. Thereafter, again document verification was completed and all the documents submitted by the applicant were found genuine. She was directed to appear for medical test. It is further argued that the applicant was also found fit in the medical test. A panel was declared on 26.09.2022 but no candidate was included in the panel against the ST vacancy. It is also argued that the applicant sent repeated requests for declaring the result against the ST category vacancy. No information was given to the applicant and resultantly, the applicant filed OA No 863 of 2023 before this Bench which was disposed of on 18.10.2023 with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant. Since direction given in the OA was not complied with , the applicant filed Contempt Petition No 36 of 2024 and thereafter the respondents passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 and the applicant’s claim for appointment was rejected on frivolous grounds. It is further argued that first, the chairman of the Board concerned had verified all the facts including the fingerprint and no discrepancy was found. Nothing was found against the applicant in the CCTV footage