Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4945

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J), Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Falguni W/o Devang Parmar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 208/2025|OA No. 209/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. K. L. Kalwani
For the Respondents: Mr. H.D.Shukla

Cancellation of completed selection process and panel for minor, curable irregularities is arbitrary and disproportionate; unsuccessful candidates estopped from post-result challenges; promotion rights accrue post-training.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act - Section 19 - Promotion - Cancellation of selection process and panel - Selection for promotion to Junior Engineer (Mechanical - C & W), Level-6, against 25% Ranker quota - Impugned show cause notice proposing cancellation on grounds of incorrect RBE reference (negative marking) and exclusion of eligible candidates from ancillary categories - Negative marking issue clarified before CBT, no prejudice caused - Exclusion allegation unsubstantiated, representations belated and time-barred under Master Circular No.31 Para-13(1) - No widespread irregularities vitiating entire process - Cancellation after completion of selection, training, and declaration of results held arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Articles 14 & 16 - Entire process and panel cannot be scrapped for curable/minor defects; supplementary selection possible if needed - Principles of estoppel/waiver apply to unsuccessful participants raising post-result objections. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13)

(B) Service Law - Promotion panels - Once approved, panel should not be normally cancelled; requires approval of higher authority and satisfaction of serious procedural irregularity causing hardship - Belated representations beyond 2 months not entertainable without proof of hardship - No vested right till appointment, but accrued right post-training completion cannot be denied without justifiable grounds. (Para 13.1)

(C) Judicial Review - Cancellation of selection - Extreme measure justified only for pervasive irregularities undermining entire process; not for remediable defects - Burden on administration to justify under Art.14 non-arbitrariness and larger public interest. (Paras 10.1, 10.2, 13.3)

Facts of the case:
Applicants selected via CBT for promotion against 25% Ranker quota, empanelled, trained successfully, awaiting promotion - Respondents issued show cause notice post-representations from unsuccessful candidates alleging irregularities in eligibility and marking scheme, followed by orders cancelling entire selection/panel.

Findings of Court:
Impugned notice and orders quashed; respondents directed to issue promotion orders to applicants with consequential benefits from date of passing training.

Issues: (i) Sustainability of cancellation orders; (ii) Estoppel/waiver on post-participation objections; (iii) Gravity of alleged irregularities; (iv) Arbitrariness post-selection/training completion.

Ratio Decidendi: Cancellation unsustainable absent grave, pervasive irregularities; minor/curable defects do not justify scrapping entire process affecting meritorious candidates - Unsuccessful participants estopped from belated challenges; action arbitrary, violates proportionality and Arts.14/16.

Result: OAs allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of selection process and cancellation (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. applicants' arguments against cancellation arbitrariness (Para 4)
3. respondents' defense of procedural irregularities (Para 5)
4. rebuttal on representations and master circular violations (Para 6)
5. undisputed facts and issues for consideration (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
6. impugned orders unsustainable absent grave irregularities (Para 10)
7. estoppel bars post-participation challenges (Para 11)
8. irregularities minor, curable by supplementary selection (Para 12)
9. cancellation arbitrary, violates articles 14/16 (Para 13)
10. quash cancellation, direct promotions (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

Per: Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)

The issue involved in both the OAs i.e. OA No. 208/2025 and OA No.

209/2025 arises from a common set of facts and relief sought by the applicants therein are also common nature, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and for the sake of convenience and clarity, the pleading of O.A. No.208/2025 (Ms.Falguni Devang Parmar Vs. UOI &

Anr.) is referred to as the lead case for adjudication.

1.1 The applicants, by way of the present Original Application(s), assail the correctness, justness, legality, and validity of the show cause notice decision bearing No. ECW/1025/1/JE (Ranker) Vol. II dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure A-1), issued by the O/o Respondent No. 2 whereby it has been proposed to cancel the entire selection process conducted for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical – C & W), Level-6, against the 25% Ranker quota in respect to the panel whereof had earlier been notified vide letter dated 14.11.2024 and in this regard calls upon five empanelled candidates, including the applicants herein, to submit their representations, if any, within a stipulated time limit and also being aggrieved with an order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure A/21 & 22) whereby the respondents rejected the representation of the applicants and had decided to cancel entire selection of Rajkot Division for the post of JE (Mechanical) Level – 6 against 25% Rankers Quota by scrapping the panel notified on 14.11.2024 for the said post, thus, the applicants have filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal‟s Act, seeking following reliefs:

―a. The Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to admit and allow this OA.

b. The Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to restrain the respondents from cancelling the final panel of the candidates issued vide dated 14.11.2024 at Annexure A- 12 and dated

06.12.2024 at Annexure A-13.

c. Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold, declare and direct that the decision taken by the respondents and issuing the show cause notice ECW/1025/1/JE (Ranker) Vol. II dated 17.04.2025 proposing to cancel the entire selection process/panel (Annexure – A-1) is unjust, improper, illegal and arbitrary and may be quashed and set aside.

―8 CC. The Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold, declare and direct that both the impugned decisions of the Respondent Administration vide No. ECW/1025/1/JE(Ranker) VoI .II dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure-A-21 & A-22) are illegal, unjust & arbitrary and be quashed & set aside and be declared that the panel notified on 14.11.2024 for the post of JE(Mechanical)-Level-6 continues and be acted upon.‖

d. The Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to not withhold the promotion orders of the applicants to the post of JE(C&W) for which they are qualified and the Respondents be directed release the promotion order of the Applicants to the post of J.E( C & W) for which she is placed in Panel, with all the consequential benefits from the date after she has completed her training period satisfactorily and is declared as passed or from any other date, as may be found appropriate by Hon’ble tribunal.

e. Any other appropriate order or orders as the Hon’ble Tribunal deem just and proper, be passed.

f. Cost of the OA may please be awarded‖

2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4945

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALJayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J), Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)Falguni W/o Devang Parmar – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOA No. 208/2025|OA No. 209/2025

Cancellation of completed selection process and panel for minor, curable irregularities is arbitrary and disproportionate; unsuccessful candidates estopped from post-result challenges; promotion rights accrue post-training.

Cases Referred (9)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J), Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Falguni W/o Devang Parmar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 208/2025|OA No. 209/2025