1. Applicants challenge the wholesale cancellation of a recruitment process for scientific posts in a public sector organization after the completion of interviews and publication of a provisional select list. (Para 3 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14681
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Ranjit More, Chairman, Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J), Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Neeraj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No.962/2025|M.A. No.2717/2026|M.A. No.4831/2026|M.A.No.4832/2026|O.A. No.458/2026|M.A. No.3003/2026
Important Points
Cancellation of a recruitment process after provisional results are declared is arbitrary unless widespread fraud is proven. If the error lies in the employer's scrutiny of documents, candidates who already passed the interview should not be subjected to a fresh interview.
Subject
Service Law - Recruitment and Selection
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Recruitment Process - Cancellation of Selection - Arbitrariness - Cancellation of an entire recruitment process after the publication of a provisional select list, in the absence of fraud, malpractice, or misconduct by candidates, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of fairness governing public employment. (Para 36, 48)
(B) Selection Procedure - Fresh Interview - Necessity - Where candidates have already successfully cleared the interview stage and the recruitment process is stalled due to the employer's failure to properly scrutinize dossiers, a fresh interview is not required; eligibility can be re-assessed based on existing records. (Para 46, 48)
(C) Administrative Law - Legitimate Expectation - Candidates included in a provisional select list have a legitimate expectation of appointment, which cannot be extinguished by a unilateral and arbitrary cancellation of the process without specific findings of widespread infirmities that undermine the process in its entirety. (Para 36, 39)
Issues: Whether a fresh interview is required for candidates included in the list of provisionally selected for the post of Scientist-D, or if it is sufficient to re-assess qualifications and eligibility requirements based on records.
Result: The reference is answered in the negative; no fresh interview is required.
(B) Selection Procedure - Fresh Interview - Necessity - Where candidates have already successfully cleared the interview stage and the recruitment process is stalled due to the employer's failure to properly scrutinize dossiers, a fresh interview is not required; eligibility can be re-assessed based on existing records. (Para 46, 48)
(C) Administrative Law - Legitimate Expectation - Candidates included in a provisional select list have a legitimate expectation of appointment, which cannot be extinguished by a unilateral and arbitrary cancellation of the process without specific findings of widespread infirmities that undermine the process in its entirety. (Para 36, 39)
Issues: Whether a fresh interview is required for candidates included in the list of provisionally selected for the post of Scientist-D, or if it is sufficient to re-assess qualifications and eligibility requirements based on records.
Result: The reference is answered in the negative; no fresh interview is required.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Esha Mazumdar, Setu Niket, Manish Kumar, Abhishek Yadav
For the Respondents: S.M. Aatif, Abdul Kabir Khan, Hanu Bhaskar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Esha Mazumdar, Setu Niket, Manish Kumar, Abhishek Yadav
For the Respondents: S.M. Aatif, Abdul Kabir Khan, Hanu Bhaskar
Table of Contents
2. Applicants argue cancellation without notice is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16, while respondents maintain re-evaluation revealed widespread ineligibility necessitating the total cancellation for integrity. (Para 10 , 16 , 21 , 22 , 44 )
3. The cancellation of a completed selection process in the absence of proven widespread malpractice, infirmity, or beneficiary identification is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principle of proportionality. (Para 36 , 37 , 45 , 46 )
4. A selection process cannot be cancelled in its entirety after publication of a select list without evidence of widespread, inseparable illegality; candidates must be assessed based on existing records. (Para 37 , 48 )
5. The Tribunal quashed the cancellation order, directing respondents to finalize the recruitment process without a fresh interview and issue appointment orders based on the existing merit list and eligibility. (Para 40 , 48 , 49 )
6. Can a state authority cancel a recruitment process entirely after the provisional select list is published?
No, cancellation after the final selection stage is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 unless there is evidence of widespread, pervasive infirmity that cannot be separated from valid selections. (Para 36 , 37 , 48 )
7. Does the mere discovery of non-eligible candidates in a select list justify cancelling the entire recruitment?
No, the court held that valid candidates should not be deprived of appointment due to an authority's failure to properly scrutinize documents earlier; non-eligible candidates should be weeded out instead. (Para 36 , 37 , 46 )
8. When is a fresh interview required for successful candidates in a cancelled recruitment process?
A fresh interview is not required merely because the original selection was cancelled due to administrative errors in eligibility verification, provided the initial interview process was not vitiated by malpractice. (Para 46 , 48 )
9. Is selective cancellation of certain posts within a common recruitment advertisement discriminatory?
Yes, selective cancellation of posts for certain grades while proceeding with others under identical advertisement terms is considered discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16. (Para 39 )
ORDER
PER: AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. Heard the parties at substantial length.
2. These matters have been referred for consideration of question which is overlapping and therefore have been listed together for analogous hearing.
3. This reference arises out of order dated 22.07.2026 passed by the Division Bench of this Tribunal at Principal Bench in OA No. 962/2025, titled Neeraj Kumar and another versus Union of India and others. When the matter was listed before the Division Bench, two decisions, namely, Devender Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. O.A. No.1409/2025 with OA No.1127/2025 Kranti Gaurav & Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors. decided vide common order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the Principal Bench in Krishna Kumar M. Versus Union of India & Ors. in OA No.229/2025 and with OA No.00231/2025 Giritharan R. Versus Union of India and Ors. decided vide common order dated 15.07.2026 passed by Chennai Bench, Chennai were cited. The Division Bench noticing the conflict of opinion thought it apt that the controversy should be resolved by a Larger Bench and accordingly the matter is placed before us.
4. The reference has been made to the Larger Bench for answering the following question of law:-
―Whether a fresh interview is required in cases of applicants, included in the list of provisionally selected for the post of Scientist-D, or required only to re-assess qualifications and eligibility requirements prescribed in Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 and complete the recruitment process?‖
BACKGROUND OF THE REFERENCE
5. The facts as adumbrated by the applicants in OA No.962/2025 are that the applicants being fully eligible as per terms and conditions of the detailed advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 dated 20 Oct. 2022, submitted their online applications for recruitment to the post of Scientist-D. In accordance with selection process prescribed in the Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2, the applicants appeared in three stage process i.e. Screening Test, Evaluation of the academic records followed by interview. Respondents directed all the shortlisted candidates to upload the requisite documents between 17.5.2023 and 22.5.2023 and forward one set of hard copies to Nodal officer, NIC Recruitment Examination, NIELIT, Calicut. Thereafter, the respondents issued a list of candidates shortlisted for an interview for the post of Scientist-D in NIC and revised list of shortlisted candidates for interview to the post of Scientist-C and Scientist-D in NIC in terms of Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2. Names of the applicants are placed in short listed list of candidates for interview for the post of Scientist-D in NIC.
6. It is the further case of the applicants that respondents proceeded in terms of advertisement and selection process i.e. screening test, evaluation of academic records, and prior to the date of interview, as per terms of advertisement, for verification of documents, call letter was issued in name of applicants for document verification and interview (Annexure A-7) and date of document verification was given - 19.1.2024, reporting time 8.30 AM. On the document verification done on 19.1.2024, the interview was scheduled and held from 18.1.2024 to 20.1.2024.
7. Respondents have issued on 15.3.2024, the list of provisionally selected candidates for the post of Scientist-D in NIC against Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2, and name of the applicant no.1 is at serial no.6 and applicant no.2 is placed at serial no.11.
8. Applicants have submitted representation on 12.2.2025 to the respondents requesting for an offer of appointment for the post of Scientist-D. Thereafter, respondents have issued impugned Order dt. 25.2.2025 (Ann-A-1), whereby in highly arbitrary, illegal manner without any notice, they have cancelled the selection process after completing it without assigning any specific reason.
9. The list of selected candidates including the applicants was issued on 15.3.2024 vide Annexure A-8
