AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Heard the parties at substantial length.
These matters have been referred for consideration of question which is overlapping and therefore have been listed together for analogous hearing.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The list of selected candidates including the applicants was issued on 15.3.2024 vide Annexure A-8 after due selection process in terms of advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 for the post of Scientist-D in NIC. It is alleged that the respondents have cancelled the entire panel drawn after due selection process for Scientist-D vide impugned Order dated 25.2.2025. Hence the OA No.962/2025 has been filed to set-aside impugned Order dt. 25.2.2025 and direct respondents to complete the selection process in respect of the successful candidates including the applicants herein.
Per Contra, the respondents have filed the Counter Reply stating that MeitY has assigned the responsibility of conducting the recruitment examination for Scientific and Technical posts to NIELIT/the respondent No. 2, on behalf of MeitY and its constituent organisations including NIC, STQC and ICERT.
Respondents have further made averments in the reply that respondent No. 2, duly issued Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2, inviting online applications from 20.10.2022 to 21.11.2022 for the posts of Scientist-F, Scientist-E, Scientist-D and Scientist-C. The Clause 5 prescribed selection process -
For the post of Scientist-E and Scientist-F for direct recruitment through a two-stage process, i.e. Evaluation of academic record by Evaluation Committee by awarding marks out of 120 marks for various parameters. The candidates are to be shortlisted in the ratio of 1:3 based on marks obtained in the evaluation of the academic records. Thereafter, the final merit list is to be prepared based on marks obtained out of maximum marks of 150 marks maximum (120 marks for evaluation of academic record and maximum 30 marks for interview).
Sub-clause (A) of Clause 5 - Selection process in the advertisement prescribes the selection process a three-stage process i.e. screening test, Evaluation of academic records followed by interview for the post of Scientist-C and Scientist-D. The first stage process is for screening test in nature of qualifying from multiple-choice questions test and list of candidates qualifying screening test would be shortlisted in the ratio of 1:6 (i.e. six candidates per post) in order of merit. The Shortlisted candidates from the first-stage screening test in 1:6 ratio would then be evaluated by an evaluation committee based on marks obtained out of maximum 120 marks, for various parameters. Thereafter a merit list would be prepared out of 120 marks and from this list, a shortlist of candidates in the ratio 1:3 would be called for the interview which holds maximum 30 marks in order of merit. Thereafter, final merit list would be prepared on maximum of 150 marks i.e. marks obtained in Evaluation Process (Max 120 marks) and in Interview (Max. 30 marks).
Respondents have stated in the written statement that recruitment process has been completed for posts of Scientist-E and F and offer of appointment was issued on 15.3.2024 to the selected candidates.
Respondents have also stated in the reply that NIELIT conducted online examination for 12 posts of Scientist-D and 141 posts of Scientist-C during 18.3.2023 to 21.3.2023. Thereafter, based on the written examination, NIELIT conducted evaluation of academic records and published the list of shortlisted candidates for the next stage of assessment for post of Scientist-D and Scientist-C to conduct interview on 18.7.2023. Thereafter upon receipt of complaints from the candidates, the recruitment agency, re-conducted the academic evaluation and a revised list of the shortlisted candidates for interview was published on the recruitment portal on 29.12.2023.
The respondents have further stated that the document verification and interview of the shortlisted candidates were conducted by the recruitment agency during 18.1.2024 to 20.1.2024 and a list of provisionally selected candidates for the 12 posts of Scientist-D and posts of Scientist-C was published by NIELIT on 15.3.2024. The issuance of offer for appointment to the candidates was to be done after receipt of physical copies of the dossiers of the candidates from the recruitment agency and its scrutiny.
It is further case of the respondents that on scrutiny of dossiers of the candidates, it was seen that a substantial number of candidates in the select list and reserve panel did not fulfil the qualitative requirement for the post advertised. It was therefore decided to re-evaluate the records of the provisionally selected candidates to ensure that non-eligible candidates are not appointed at the expense of eligible candidates. The Evaluation Committee examined the academic records of candidates in the merit list as well as the reserve panel and recommended the criteria for consideration of relevant experience at appropriate level.
Respondents have further averred that on the scrutiny of the candidate dossiers, it was seen that more than 65% of the shortlisted candidates did not fulfil the qualitative requirement for the post of Scientist-D and Scientist-C. In view of the above, it was decided to cancel the recruitment process for the 12 posts of Scientist-D and 141 posts of Scientist-C against Recruitment Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 to ensure non-eligible candidates are not appointed at the cost of eligible candidates.
The similarly situated candidates had earlier approached the Principal Bench of Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1127/2025, titled Kranti Gaurav Versus UOI and Ors. and OA No.1409/2025 titled Devender Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. which was decided vide common order dated 30.04.2026, whereby the notification cancelling the recruitment process pertaining to the posts of Scientist-C and Scientist-D was quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to issue appointment orders to the candidates indicated in green in the additional affidavit dated 9.2.2026. Insofar as the remaining candidates included in the provisional select list after the interview are concerned, their cases were directed to be re-interviewed and eligibility re-assessed and reconsidered by an independent committee headed by a retired Hon’ble Judge of a High Court. So far as the present case in our hand is concerned, the applicants fall in the category of candidates included in the provisional select list after the interview. Consequently, in terms of Clause (iii) of paragraph 9.1 of the order dated 30.4.2026 passed by Principal Bench the applicants‘ cases are required to be re-interviewed and their eligibility is to be assessed by the independent committee headed by a retired Hon’ble Judge of a High Court.
Later on, similarly situated candidates approached the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 229/2025 titled Krishna Kumar M. and in O.A. No. 231/2025, Giritharan R. vs. UOI, decided vide Common Order dated 15.7.2026, whereby the impugned cancellation order dated 25.2.2025 is quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to complete the recruitment process and issue appointment orders to the applicants as well as other candidates, subject to the fulfilment of other eligibility conditions in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and as per the terms of the advertisement. Clause (ii) of the aforesaid directions makes it clear that appointment orders are to be issued subject to fulfilment of the eligibility conditions prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and the terms of the advertisement.
Learned Counsel for both the parties submitted that the re-assessment as to eligibility criteria shall have to be in accordance with qualifications and eligibility criteria prescribed under the advertisement and the applicable Recruitment Rules. Ms. Esha Majumdar, learned Counsel for the applicants in case in our hand, much emphasized that later common order dated 15.7.2026, passed in O.A. Nos. 229/2025 and 231/2025 by Chennai Bench, is to be followed, as it has considered the earlier order dated 30.4.2026 passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal and there is no necessity for directing a fresh interview. She further submits since the applicants had already undergone the interview process, the Committee may assess the eligibility of the applicants on the basis of the existing record without conducting a re-interview.
The Division Bench vide order dated 22.7.2026 in O.A. No. 962/2025, in the case in our hand, had observed that there appears to be a divergence between the directions issued by the Principal Bench in O.A. No. 1409/2025 and by the Chennai Bench in case of O.A. No. 231/2025. Since both the matters pertain to the same recruitment process and the directions issued therein appear to be at variance on the question— ―whether a fresh interview is required?‖, the Division Bench referred the issue to be decided by a Larger Bench. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before us.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANTS
Ms. Esha Mazumdar and Mr. Setu Niket, learned Counsel for the applicants argued in support of order passed by the Chennai Bench and their arguments can be summarised as under-
Applicants had applied for the post of Scientist ‗D‘ in response to Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2, and they are fully eligible as per terms and conditions of the advertisement and successfully qualified all stages of the selection process, including screening test, academic evaluation, document verification and interview. It is not disputed by the respondents that recruitment process was completed in adherence of eligibility criteria and procedural norms and thereafter final provisional list of selected candidates was issued on 15.3.2024 and both the candidates are meritorious. Respondents, in an arbitrary and illegal manner and in violation of principles of natural justice, without assigning any valid reason, cancelled the entire recruitment process on 25.2.2025, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the affected candidates.
The academic evaluation had already been conducted by a committee which comprised senior officers of NIC based on candidates documents. After successful document verification, candidates were allotted interview schedule. Without notice to the affected candidates, the cancellation of entire selections process is bad in law and also in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Applicants are fully eligible for the post and rules of the game cannot be changed after game has begun.
Applicants had qualified successfully all stages of selection process and included in list of provisionally selected candidates and non-eligible candidates can be weeded out before issuing offer of appointment.
In similar cases in OA No.229/2025 and OA No.231/2025, Chennai Bench of this Tribunal, after considering the Common Order dt.30.04.2026 in O.A. No.1409 of 2025 and O.A. No.1127/2025 passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, issued a common order dated 15.07.2026. Hence the later Common Order dated 15.7.2026 passed by Chennai Bench shall prevail and there is no necessity for directing a fresh interview since the applicants had already undergone the interview process and accordingly the Committee may reassess the eligibility of the applicants on the basis of existing record without conducting a re-interview.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS/INTERVENORS
Learned Counsel for the respondents contended and their arguments can be summarized as under:
The respondent no. 2 issued advertisement no. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 for the posts of Scientist F, E, D & C and selection process was conducted in terms of the advertisement. Results for the post of Scientist F & E were declared on 7.3.2024 and offer of appointment were issued to the selected candidates on 15.3.2024 and no complaint has been received against the selection for the posts of Scientist F and E.
NIELIT conducted online written exam for 12 posts of Scientist D and 141 posts of Scientist-C during 18.3.2023 to 21.3.2023. Thereafter, based on the screening test results, NIELIT, conducted evaluation of academic records and published the list of shortlisted candidates for next stage of assessment for post of Scientist D and C for interview. The NIELIT, received complaints from candidates and decision was taken to re-conduct the academic evaluation and a revised list of the shortlisted candidates for interview was published on recruitment portal on 29.12.2023.
Based on the revised list of shortlisted candidates, the list was published for interview on the recruitment portal on 29.12.2023. Recruitment agency conducted documents verification and interview of the shortlisted candidates from 18.1.2024 to 20.1.2024. Thereafter, the list of provisionally selected candidates for the 12 posts of Scientist D and 141 posts of Scientist C was published by NIELIT on 15.3.2024. On receipt of complaints from non-selected candidates, physical dossiers were received on 17.5.2024 and it was seen that more than 65% shortlisted candidates do not fulfill the qualitative requirements for the posts of Scientist-D and Scientist C. The respondents passed order on 25.2.2025, to cancel the recruitment process for posts of Scientist ‗D‘ and Scientist ‗C‘ under the advertisement, to ensure that non-eligible candidates are not appointed at the expense of eligible candidates.
iv) The recruitment process for 12 posts of Scientist ‗D‘ and 141 posts of Scientist ‗C‘ have been conducted in strict adherence to the established eligibility criteria and procedural norms, with no deviation from the law or regulations. There were discrepancies in dossiers of selected candidates for 12 posts for Scientist ‗D‘. The dossiers of the provisionally selected candidates for the post of Scientist ‗C‘ and ‗D‘, were re-evaluated by newly constituted Academic Evaluation Committee (in short AEC) and the AEC came to conclusion that the provisionally selected candidates did not have the requisite qualifications and the substantial number of candidates in the select list and reserve list may not be fulfilling the aforementioned qualitative requirement and conducting re-evaluation of the academic records may lead to a substantial change in the provisional list. Hence it was decided to cancel the recruitment process for the 12 posts of Scientist ‗D‘ and 141 posts of Scientist ‗C‘.
Mr. Hanu Bhasker, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents/Interveners, representing respondents in O.A. No. 1127/2025 (Delhi), and reiterated submissions made by learned counsel for respondents and supported the decisions by the Principal Bench and emphasised that direction to re-interview shall afford an opportunity to the affected candidates.
Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for interveners/applicants in O.A. No. 1127/2025 (Delhi) and Mr. Krishna Kumar M. and Giritharan R., applicants - Party-in-person and applicants in O.A. NO. 229/2025 and 231/2025 (Chennai) supported the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, so also much emphasised and supported the decision by Chennai Bench that in light of later decision of equal strength by coordinate Chennai Bench in identical case in O.A. No. 229/2025 and 231/2025 passed order dt 15.7.2026, taking into consideration the earlier order dated 30.4.2026 in O.A. No. 1127/2025 and 1409/2025 passed by Principal Bench. The Chennai Bench decisions in O.A. No. 229 and 231 of 2025 lays down the correct law which is binding on the respondents. Further contended that respondents be directed to complete the recruitment process without re-interview and issue appointment orders subject to the fulfillment of the other eligibility conditions in accordance with Recruitment Rules and terms of the advertisement in light of decision by Chennai Bench in OA No. 229/2025 and 231/2025.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
We have bestowed our anxious considerations on the rival contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material placed on record as well as considered the precedents.
Essentially, the question here is whether the criteria on the basis of which selection was made could be made the legal basis for selection and appointment of posts in question or a fresh interview is required subject to the fulfillment of other eligibility conditions in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and as per the terms of the Advertisement notified.
To appreciate the controversy, it is necessitous to refer the Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2, as to eligibility criteria and the selection process Clause 2.1, 5 & 5.2 being relevant for present purpose are reproduced in below:—
―2 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
2.1.ESSENTIAL EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION, EXPERIENCE etc.
a) EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
(For Scientist-C, Scientist-D, Scientist-E and Scientist-F)
Bachelor Degree in Engineering OR Bachelor Degree in Technology (Bachelor in Engineering or Bachelor in Technology) OR Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Course B-Level OR Associate member of Institute of Engineers OR Graduate Institute of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers OR Master's Degree in Science (MSc) OR Master Degree in Computer Application OR Master's Degree in Engineering OR Technology (ME or M-Tech) OR Master's Degree in Philosophy (MPhil) in the field as mentioned below: -
Field (Single or in combination): Physics, Applied Physics, Electronics, Electronics and Communication, Electronics and Telecommunication, Radio Physics and Electronics, Chemistry, Applied Chemistry, Materials Science, Environmental Science, Computer Sciences, Computer Science and Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer, Communication, Computer and Networking Security, Computer Application, Software Engineering, Software System, Information Technology, Information Technology Management, Informatics, Computer Management, Cyber Law, Bio-informatics, Remote Sensing, Geographical Information Systems (GIS), Geography, Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, Operations Research, Total Quality Management, Statistics, Computational Linguistics, Information Science, Information Science and Engineering, Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Production, Industrial Electronics, Instrumentation, Electronics and Instrumentation, Power Electronics, Design.
b) MINIMUM RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Post No. of years of Experience Description Scientist-C 4 years In Research and or development in Industrial and Academic Institutions or Science and technology organizations or in both
[Refer Corrigendum to Detailed Advertisement in the web portal https://www.calicut.nielit.in/nic21/ under Point 1 of Application process]
Scientist-D 8 years Scientist-E 12 years Scientist-F i) 18 years Research or Development in Industrial and Academic institutions or Science and Technology organizations or in both ii) 05 years‘ experience of evolving, managing and directing major Programmes under any branch of Scienceiii) Published research work of high standard Note 1: For Candidates having Master Degree in Engineering or Master Degree in Technology or Master Degree in Philosophy, two years relaxation in above experience shall be applicable for all posts.
Note 2: After acquiring essential qualification mentioned above, the candidate must have relevant experience as mentioned in the above table in one or more areas in Research or Development in integration and implementation of Information Technology Solution or Testing or Quality Control or Capacity Development in the areas of e-Governance or Information Technology or Computer Science or Cyber Security or Communication including Data Communications or Network and Software Engineering or Cyber Law.
Desirable: Doctorate (PhD) in Science or Engineering or Information Communication Technology.
5. SELECTION PROCESS
A) For Post of Scientist-C and Scientist-D
The Direct recruitment to the posts of Scientist C and Scientist D would be done through a three-stage process i.e. Screening Test, Evaluation of the academic records followed by personal interaction / interview.
All eligible candidates for the posts of Scientist -C and Scientist -D who have successfully submitted the online application for the posts, along with required fee & screened in, shall be called for a Screening Test.
Based on the results of screening test and evaluation of the academic records, he/she will be called for personal interaction/interview.
The screening test will be of qualifying nature and would comprise of Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQ) on Reasoning, Basic Mathematics, English, Aptitude, Attitude and Leadership Quality. Scheme of screening test shall be Objective type and will be in Online mode. Every question will carry 1(one) mark.
The screening test would consist of 150 nos of Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQ) to be answered in a maximum time of three hours. The medium of screening test shall be in English only.
Candidates qualifying the screening test with minimum 60% of marks, would only be considered eligible to fill up the second phase (main application form) for the posts of Scientist 'C' and Scientist 'D'. In case sufficient number of Candidates in OBC, SC, ST and PWD categories are not available with minimum 60% marks in the screening test, then qualifying marks could be relaxed to 50% and 40% for OBC and SC/ST/PWD categories respectively.
The list of candidates qualifying the screening test would, however, be restricted to the ratio of 1:6 (i.e. Six candidates per post) in the order of merit, in each category (UR/SC/ST/OBC/EWS/PWD) to qualify the first stage.
The applications qualifying the first phase i.e Screening Test would be evaluated by an evaluation committee and marks only would be awarded for various parameters (The details of various parameters and weightage of marks are indicated in Annexure I and Annexure II)
A merit list of short-listed candidates would be drawn based on the marks obtained out of 120 marks (excluding 30 marks for interview) and candidates in the ratio of 1:3 would be called for personal interaction/interview i.e. for each post, three candidates would be called for interview in their order of merit.
Final merit list would be prepared based on the marks obtained out of a maximum of 150 marks, i.e. marks obtained in the Evaluation process (max 120 marks) and in the Interview (max 30 marks) would be added to arrive at the final score.
5.2 VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS:
Verification of requisite documents will be done prior to the interview. Candidate will be interviewed only after confirming all the eligibility requirements and production of all relevant original documents for verification.
Mere fulfilling of requirement as laid down in the advertisement does not qualify a candidate to be called for personal interaction/interview.‖
[Emphasis Supplied]
As evident from the selection process, envisaged for post of Scientist C and Scientist D, the direct recruitment to the post of Scientist C and Scientist D was carried out in a three stage process i.e. (i) Screening test (ii) Evaluation of the Academic records followed by (iii) interview.
All eligible candidates for the posts who have successfully submitted the Online application for the posts along with required fee and screened-Online were called by NIELIT for a Screening Test, written examination during 18.3.2023 to 21.3.2023.
Thereafter, based on the results of the online written examination/screening test and evaluation of the academic records of the candidates were conducted by NIELIT. NIELIT, after conducting evaluation of academic records, published the list of shortlisted candidates for the next stage of assessment for the posts in question to appear for personal interview.
The fact of the matter, on completion of two stages of selection process i.e. Screening test / online written Exam held during the period from 18.3.2023 to 21.3.2023. Based on the results of said online written examination, NIELIT conducted evaluation of academic records and published the list of shortlisted candidates for next stage of selection of personal interview. Now at this stage, complaints were received, recruitment agency, re-conducted the academic evaluation awarding marks on various parameters based on marks out of 120 marks and a revised list of shortlisted candidates for interview was published on the portal on 29.12.2023.
Recruiting Agency, proceeded in terms of selection process in advertisement and conducted document verification and interview of short-listed candidates during 18.1.2024 to 20.1.2024 and published the list of provisionally selected candidates for the posts in question and published on 15.3.2024. The issuance of offer of appointment to the candidates/applicants, to be done on receipt of physical copies of dossiers of the candidates from the recruiting agency and its scrutiny.
The physical dossiers were received from recruiting agency on 17.5.2024 and were scrutinized and it was observed that many of the provisional merit list as well as in reserve panel were not fulfilling the eligibility criteria and do not fulfil the qualitative requirement.
Respondents have decided vide impugned order dated 25.2.2025, the cancellation of recruitment for the posts of Scientist C and Scientist D against the Advertisement No.NIELIT/NIC/2022/2.
Admittedly, the recruitment process has been conducted in strict adherence to the established eligibility criteria and procedural norms with no deviation from terms of the advertisement; and indisputedly, no fault attributed to the applicants or any candidates. But at the same time decision taken vide impugned order dt. 25.2.2025 to cancel the entire recruitment for 12 posts of Scientist-D and 141 posts of Scientist-C against recruitment advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 in NIC, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, without assigning any reasons.
We are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any specific finding supported by any concrete material that widespread infirmities have undermined the selection process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of selection process or the other irregularities, if any. We find that respondents vide impugned order dt. 25.2.2025, cancelled the entire recruitment for posts in question, by applying a unilateral arbitrarily standard to cancel the selection in its entirety, illegally and arbitrarily depriving the applicants. Applicants had not committed any illegality or irregularities in the entire selection process. The reason appears to be mismatch of physical copies of dossiers of candidates received on 25.3.2024 and electronic mode from the recruiting agency and now physical dossiers received from the recruiting agency on 17.5.2024 and many shortlisted candidates do not fulfill eligibility criteria for the posts advertised. We are of the firm view that this cannot be a reason for cancellation of the entire selection process in which the applicants were subjected to the selection process including the personal interaction/interview and respondents are liable to complete the selection process, without conducting re-interview of the applicants, as respondents have not pointed out any irregularity committed by the applicants in interview and it is not a case of respondents that provisional select list in which the applicants are declared successful was cancelled due to the fault of the applicants or any fault by those who actually conducted interview.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also endorsed the similar view in case of Union of India and others versus Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu and another, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 285. Their Lordships were seisin with cancellation of the selection process without any grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of written exam either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them repelling the plea that as person in the select list has no vested right to get appointed and finding the cancellation of entire selection arbitrary and unreasonable. The Relevant paragraphs no 6 and 7 for ready reference reads as :—
“6.……In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of all pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or other of irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or other reasons. Applying an unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go bye to contextual considerations throwing to winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably required to meet the situation. In short, the Competent Authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational.
7.For all the reasons stated above, we could not find any infirmity whatsoever in the judgment of the High Court which adopted a practical, pragmatic, rational and realistic solution to the problem. The appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. The interim order earlier granted thus automatically stands revoked. The appointments shall be made within 60 days from this day without any further delay. No costs."
[Emphasis Supplied]
In District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another versus M. Tripura Sundari Devi, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 655. Relevant paras 4 and 6 reads as under:-
―4. It has been brought to our notice during the course of the arguments that the original selection was made by mistake on the presumption that the respondent had satisfied the qualification requirements as stated in the advertisement, without scruitinising the certificates copies of which were sent with her application. The Selection Committee presumed that all those who had applied in response to the advertisement must have had the requisite qualifications needed for the posts. However, the order appointing the respondent had made it clear that the respondent should come along with the original certificates. When the respondent approached the appellants with the originals of the certificates which were scrutinized, it was found that in fact she was short of the qualifications. It is in these circumstances, that she was not allowed to join the service. It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellants had selected the respondent with the knowledge that she was under qualified. Accordingly to us, there is a good deal of force in this contention. It is common knowledge that sometimes either by mistake or otherwise the notes put up before the Selection Committee contain erroneous data prepared by the office, and sometime the Selection Committee proceeds on the basis that all those who appear before it, are otherwise qualified. However, the second stage at which the documents are scrutinized is when the higher authorities go through them at the time the candidate concerned approaches them for resuming (s/c assuming) duties along with the original certificates. It is at that stage that the mistake was discovered in the present case and the respondent was not permitted to resume her duties. We see nothing wrong in this action.
6.It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact.” [Emphasis Supplied]
The Division Bench of Principal Bench of the Tribunal, in similar case Kranti Gaurav & others and Devender Singh & others (supra), after scanning the anatomy of terms and conditions of advertisement and Recruitment Rules for the posts in question. So also placed reliance on Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors versus Rajasthan High Court & Ors, (2025) 2 SCC 1 and held as under :—
―8.8.2 The criteria prescribed for assessment were well within the knowledge and domain of the candidates. The mode, manner, and scheme of the selection process were clearly set out in the advertisement and were duly adhered to during the conduct of the recruitment process.
8.8.3Being fully conscious of the terms and conditions of the advertisement, which are binding on both parties, the candidates participated in the selection process, and the same was conducted in accordance with the stipulated procedure.
8.8.4The unsuccessful candidates did not, at any stage, challenge the credibility or constitution of the evaluation committee. The credibility of such committees is ordinarily questioned only where there is demonstrable lack of independence, procedural irregularity, or other systemic infirmity, none of which has been established in the present case.
8.8.5It cannot be contended by the respondents that, merely on the basis of representations received, the principle of equality of opportunity in matters of public employment stands diluted or defeated. Acceptance of such a proposition would render every recruitment process vulnerable at each stage of selection and would undermine the sanctity of a structured and competitive selection mechanism.
8.8.6The cancellation of the entire selection process on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of ill intent, wrongdoing, or deceit, without any conclusive findings, adversely impacts the credibility of the institution as well as the expert evaluation committees comprising senior scientists.
8.8.7The real grievance, if any, emanates from candidates who, despite possessing comparable or even better qualifications, remained unsuccessful at the academic evaluation stage under clause (f) of the advertisement, from where the present controversy has originated. 8.8.8 It is an admitted position that the recruitment authority had, prior to commencement of the selection process, devised a structured scheme with defined benchmarks at each stage. However, these benchmarks are now being retrospectively revisited and re-evaluated after completion of the process, which is impermissible in law, as held in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512.
8.8.9The arbitrariness of the impugned action is further manifest from the fact that under the same Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 dated 20.10.2022, the respondents have selectively cancelled the recruitment process for Scientist ‗C‘ and Scientist ‗D‘ while permitting appointments and joining for Scientist ‗E‘ and Scientist ‗F‘. Such selective cancellation under a common recruitment process is ex facie discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. X x x
8.20The applicants, on their part, have placed on record a detailed chart to demonstrate that they fulfill all the prescribed eligibility conditions. According to them, upon their inclusion in the provisional select list, a legitimate expectation arose for issuance of appointment orders, and the subsequent cancellation of the entire recruitment process has resulted in denial of such accrued expectation. The respondents, in their additional affidavit dated 09.02.2026, have further categorized candidates into those marked in green (approximately onethird, considered potentially eligible) and those marked in red (remaining two-thirds, considered ineligible). It is also noted that the AEC, in its minutes dated 22.11.2024, had suggested a case-by-case evaluation approach. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate that candidates identified as eligible (green category) be considered for issuance of appointment orders, subject to fulfillment of other conditions of eligibility, while in respect of the remaining candidates, a fresh assessment of their cases be undertaken by an independent committee of NIC, different from the earlier evaluation bodies, strictly in accordance with the norms prescribed under the original advertisement. Such reconsideration must be guided by the Recruitment Rules, ensuring that ―relevant experience‖ is assessed holistically and not reduced solely to pay-level parameters such as Pay Level–7 or Pay Level–10.
9. CONCLUSION
In view of the aforesaid analysis, the present Original Applications are disposed of with the following directions:
The partial cancellation of the recruitment process pertaining to the posts of Scientist-C and Scientist-D is arbitrary, discriminatory, and an impermissible exercise of power, having been effected after the declaration of provisional results. Accordingly, the impugned action is set aside and declared null and void.
The applicants indicated in green in the additional affidavit dated 09.02.2026 shall be segregated, and offer(s) of appointment shall be issued to them, subject to fulfillment of other eligibility conditions, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Further, any other applicants who are found to fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and the terms of the advertisement shall also be extended offer(s) of appointment on the same terms.
In respect of the remaining candidates in the provisional select list who were shortlisted after the interview, their cases shall be reconsidered. They shall be re-interviewed and their eligibility shall be re-assessed afresh by an independent committee to be constituted by NIC, distinct from the earlier Evaluation Committees, strictly in accordance with the norms prescribed under the impugned advertisement. The Independent Committee shall comprise the following members:
Retired Hon‘ble Judge of a High Court – Chairperson
Head of Institution / Nominee of NIC
Five senior members from NIC, excluding those who were part of the earlier Evaluation Committee; alternatively, experts may be drawn from reputed public or private institutions, universities, or organizations in the relevant field.
The honorarium, expenses, venue, and schedule of interviews shall be fixed in consultation with the Chairperson (Retired Hon‘ble High Court Judge) by the Head of Institution/NIC. NIELIT shall extend all necessary assistance to ensure a fair, transparent, and efficient conduct of the exercise.
(iv)This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
(v)Upon finalisation of the selection list, appointment offers shall be issued to the selected candidates who fulfill all other eligibility conditions within one month thereafter.‖
[Emphasis Supplied]
The later decision passed by Chennai Bench dt.15.7.2026 in case of Krishna Kumar M and Giritharan R (supra) by the coordinate Bench of co-equal strength, considered the earlier decision dated 30.4.2026 in case of Kranti Gurav and Devender Singh (supra) by Principal Bench. The later decision in case of Krishna Kumar M and Giritharan R (supra) considered the issue whether respondents were justified in cancelling the recruitment process for the post of Scientist C and D after completion of entire selection process, including the interview, and after publication of the provisional select list? The Chennai Bench in its decision, referred to earlier decision in similar case in Kranti Gurav and in Devender Singh (supra) passed by Principal Bench and also considered the fact of the matter, that cancellation of selection particularly in absence of any allegation of fraud, and malpractice or misconduct attributable to the selected candidates and such cancellation is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of fairness governing public employment. The later decision, considered a catena of judicial pronouncements on cancellation of a recruitment process after completion of the selection process. The Relevant paras 27 of common order dated 15.7.2026 in case Krishna Kumar and Giritharan R (supra) passed by Chennai Bench, Bench Chennai reads as :-
― 27. In the above circumstance, and on the basis of the Principal Bench cited supra, both the Original Applications are disposed of with the following directions:
(i)The partial cancellation of the recruitment process pertaining to the post of Scientist-C and Scientist-D is arbitrary, discriminatory and an impermissible exercise of power, having been effected after the declaration of provisional results. Accordingly, the impugned cancellation order dated 25.02.2025 is quashed and set aside.
(ii)The respondents are directed to compete the recruitment process and issue appointment orders to the applicants as well as other candidates, subject to the fulfillment of other eligibility conditions in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and as per terms of the Advertisement notified.
(iii)Pending MAs in the two OAs are all closed. There shall be no order as to costs.‖
[Emphasis Supplied]
Ms. Esha Majumdar, learned counsel for the applicants vehemently submitted that clause (ii) of later decision in case of Krishna Kumar and Giritharan R (supra), passed by the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal, after considering the earlier decision of this Tribunal dated 30.4.2026 in case of Kranti Gurav and Devender Singh (supra) makes it clear that appointment orders are to be issued subject to fulfillment of the eligibility conditions prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and the terms of advertisement.
Ms. Majumdar also vociferously canvassed that there is no necessity for directing a fresh interview since the applicants had already undergone the interview process and the Committee may re-assess the eligibility of the applicants on the basis of the existing record without conducting a re-interview as applicants fall in category of candidates included in the provisional select list, after the interview for 12 posts of Scientist D.
Learned counsel for the applicants also argued that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given before cancellation of entire provisional select list for 12 posts of Scientist D. Since the selection was not vitiated on part of candidates in any manner, cancellation of the entire selection is bad in law. The applicants have not committed any illegality or irregularities.
Mr. S.M. Arif and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Sr. CGSC appearing for respondents/intervenors also contended and reiterated stand taken in the counter-reply that recruitment process for Scientist-C and D has been conducted in strict adherence to the established criteria and procedural norms in accordance with terms of advertisement. Dossiers of candidates received from the recruitment agency on 17.5.2024 after list of provisionally selected candidates for 12 post of Scientist-D and 141 post of Scientist C was published on 15.3.2024 and issuance of offer of appointment to be done after receipt of physical copies of dossiers and its scrutiny. On scrutiny of candidates dossiers more than 65% short-listed candidates did not fulfill qualitative requirement and did not fulfill eligibility. Therefore it was decided to cancel the entire recruitment process for 12 posts of Scientist D and 141 posts of Scientist-C against the recruitment advertisement no. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 to ensure that non-eligible candidates are not appointed.
Indisputedly, the respondents have not pointed out any irregularity committed by the applicants or any of the candidates in the provisional select list, who were shortlisted after the interview. It is not the case of the respondents that the provisional select list for Scientist C or Scientist D was declared successful was cancelled due to fault of the applicants or the participating candidates. The reason mentioned by respondents for cancellation of entire selection process based on eligibility not assessed properly in accordance with terms of advertisement and recruitment rules before issuance of offer of appointment.
We are of the view that in this case fault lies on the respondents to scrutinise the candidates dossier of short-listed candidates to re-assess eligibility requirements in terms of recruitment rules and terms of advertisement. This cannot be a reason for subjecting the applicants to re-interview. The applicants have already cleared the interview and cannot be made to face again the interview.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also endorsed similar view in case of Rajesh P.U. (supra) and in view of the settled legal position, we are of the considered view that the later decision in case of Krishna Kumar and Giritharan (supra) by Chennai Bench of this Tribunal already taken into consideration earlier decision of P.B. in OA No.1127/2025 and OA No.1409/2025 (supra) and Chennai Bench decision lays down the law correctly and is in accordance with the terms and conditions of advertisement & Recruitment Rules and deserves our approval.
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED
For the aforesaid reasons, we record our conclusion as under :-
The decision rendered in Kranti Gaurav Versus UOI and Ors. and Devender Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (supra) insofar as in terms of clause (iii) of paragraph 9.1., the applicants are required to be re-interviewed by independent committee headed by a retired Hon'ble Judge of a High Court, does not lay down the law correctly.
The later decision dated 15.07.2026 in case of Krishna Kumar M and Giritharan R (supra) by Chennai Bench considering judicial pronouncements held that cancellation of a recruitment process after completion of selection process and publication of provisional select list and in absence of any allegation of fraud, malpractice or misconduct attributable to the selected candidates is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of fairness governing public recruitment, wherein the clause (ii) makes it clear that appointment orders are to be issued subject to fulfilment of the eligibility conditions prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and the terms of the advertisement, without a fresh interview, lays down the correct law.
We are of the view that the direction given in later decision in case of Krishna Kumar M. (Supra) dated 15.07.2026 by Chennai Bench to proceed with the selection without fresh interview, in case of remaining candidates in provisional select list in case in hand, and to complete the recruitment process and issue appointment orders to the applicants as well as other candidates subject to the fulfillment of other eligibility conditions in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and as per the terms of advertisement notified, deserves our approval
The reference is disposed of in above indicated terms.
Let the Original Applications be now laid before the Division Bench for hearing as per Roster.
Reference is answered accordingly.