AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri Vishwas Nigam, the applicant, who appears in person and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
This Original Application is filed by the applicant, under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
8.a) To quash the impugned rejection list F.No.S.11011/11/2020 for the post of Assistant Communication Officer in the Directorate of Co-ordination Police Wireless, New Delhi, issued in concerned with Advertisement No.Phase-VIII/2020/Selection Post Category No.NW11720 in relation to applicant only.
b)to direct the authority concerned to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of Assistant Communication Officer, Post Category NW 11720 advertised under phase-VIII/2020/Selection Post.
c)to grant such other relief as the applicant might be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.
d)Award the cost of the petition to the applicant.
The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the Original Application, are that the applicant is having a degree of B.Tech. in Electrical Engineering from Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow. On 21.02.2020, an advertisement vide Phase-VIII/2020/Selection Post was issued by the respondents for filling up the post of Assistant Communication Officer in the Directorate of Coordination, Police Wireless, Ministry of Home Affairs, having Post Code NW11720. Thereafter, on 02.03.2020, the respondents changed the qualification criteria in the name of correction of a typographical error.
In pursuance thereof, the applicant, being eligible, applied for the said post. Subsequently, the applicant appeared in the Computer Based Examination (CBE) examination held on 09.11.2020 and was declared successful in the said examination. However, the Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”), without affording any opportunity of hearing, rejected the candidature of the applicant along with other candidates vide rejection list bearing F. No. S.11011/11/2020 dated nil, and the name of the applicant was mentioned at Serial No. 30 of the said list, which is impugned in the present Original Application.
On the other hand, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit on 30.10.2025, wherein it has been stated that on 21.02.2020, the SSC issued the said Notification for the aforesaid post. Thereafter, the result of the CBE was declared on 12.04.2021. The rejection list for the said post was declared on 13.01.2022, and an opportunity was given to all rejected candidates to submit representations/grievances up to 23.01.2022 (05:00 PM) on the email ID: [email protected]. After examination of all the representations, a Tentative EQ Accept List for the post was issued by the SSC on 26.04.2022. The candidates whose names were mentioned in the Tentative EQ Accept List were called for Document Verification. The final result for the said post was declared on 21.11.2022. The recruitment process for the post in question was completed as per the details stated in the Requisition Proforma and Recruitment Rules (R.Rs.) provided by the Indenting Department, i.e. Directorate of Coordination, Police Wireless, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, along with the eligibility criteria published in the Notification of the said examination. As per the R.Rs. and the advertisement published on the website of the Commission, the Essential Qualification for the aforesaid post was as under:-
“Bachelor of Technology or Bachelor of Engineering of Bachelor of Science (Engineering) degree in Electronics or Electronics and Communication of Information Technology or Computer Science or Information and Communication Technology from a recognized University or Institute”.
OR
“Bachelor’s Degree in Science with Electronics or Electronics and Communication or Computer Science or Information Technology or Physics as one of the subjects from a recognized University or Institute with one year’s experience in Radio Communication or Computer Communication or Satellite Communication or Cyber Security or any Central Government or State Government or Union Territories or Public Sector Undertaking Organization.
Note: Candidate studied above subject in all the years shall only be considered as eligible.”
The respondents, vide Advertisement Notice No. S.11011/11/2020/NWR dated 02.03.2020, issued a Corrigendum of Typographical Error to Advertisement No. Phase-VIII/2020/Selection Posts issued vide F. No. 15/3/2019/RHQ dated 21.02.2020. By the said Corrigendum, the word “of” (which was a typographical error in the Essential Qualification) was replaced with the word “or” at the place between “Electronics and Communication” and “Information Technology”. The Essential Qualification as per this Corrigendum was read as under:-
“Bachelor of Technology or Bachelor of Engineering or Bachelor of Science (Engineering) degree in Electronics or Electronics and Communication or Information Technology or Computer Science or Information and Communication Technology from a recognized University or Institute”.
OR
“Bachelor’s Degree in Science with Electronics or Electronics and Communication or Computer Science or Information Technology or Physics as one of the subjects from a recognized University or Institute with one year’s experience in Radio Communication or Computer Communication or Satellite Communication or Cyber Security of any Central Government or State Government or Union Territories or Public Sector Undertaking Organization.
Note: Candidate studied above subject in all the years shall only be considered as eligible.”
Thus, the answering respondents have made a minor change/correction and, as such, the respondents have not changed the qualification criteria vide the said Corrigendum.
As per Para 14.2 of the guidelines/instructions of the Advertisement, the Commission will not undertake detailed scrutiny of applications for eligibility and other aspects at the time of the CBE and, therefore, candidature will be accepted only provisionally. The candidates are advised to go through the requirements of educational qualification, experience, age, physical and medical standards, etc., as per the requirements of the Post Category they wish to apply for and satisfy themselves that they are eligible for the post(s). Copies of self-attested supporting documents, along with the printout of the online application form, will be sought at the time of the Scrutiny Stage from the shortlisted candidates for the said stage of scrutiny and at the time of Document Verification. When scrutiny of documents is undertaken at any stage of the recruitment process, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature will be cancelled and the Commission’s decision shall be final.
As per Para 17.20 (Selection Procedure) of the advertisement, the candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfil all the eligibility conditions for admission to the examination. Their admission at all stages of the examination will be purely provisional, subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. If, on verification, at any time or after the written examination, it is found that they do not fulfil any of the eligibility conditions, their candidature for the examination will be cancelled.
The applicant appeared for the CBE for the said post and qualified in the CBE for the next stage of the recruitment procedure, i.e. submission of requisite documents for further scrutiny. Accordingly, he submitted a hard copy of his online application along with other documents relating to educational qualification and experience, etc., for scrutiny and Document Verification. Primary scrutiny of his documents was carried out by the User Department, and the candidature of the applicant was rejected with the remarks that “B.Tech in Electrical (EQ not fulfil)”. The rejection list dated 13.01.2022 was issued by the SSC (NWR), notifying all such rejections to the candidates concerned. The concerned candidates were given an opportunity to submit representations against their rejections to the Office of SSC (NWR) within 10 days via email at [email protected]. Pursuant thereto, the applicant submitted his representation against his rejection via email dated 19.01.2022. As the rejection of the applicant was due to Essential Qualification, his representation was examined by the User Department. The User Department gave the following remarks on the representation of the applicant: “B. Tech in Electrical (EQ not fulfill).”
The final result for the post of Assistant Communication Officer, Post Code-NW11720, in the Directorate of Coordination, Police Wireless, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, was declared by the Commission on 21.11.2022. Since the applicant was not found to possess the requisite Essential Qualification as per the R.Rs. of the said post notified in the Advertisement, his candidature was rightly rejected. The applicant is not the only candidate who was rejected due to non-possession of the Essential Qualification. Rather, there are many other candidates who possessed the same educational qualification as that of the applicant, i.e. B.Tech. in Electrical Engineering, whose names are mentioned in the Rejection List and whose candidature was also rejected on the same ground, i.e. non-possession of the Essential Qualification. Hence, the instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
Rejoinder Affidavit was also filed by the applicant on 10.07.2026, wherein the applicant reiterated the same averments as made in the Original Application.
The applicant, who appears in person submitted that the applicant possessed a B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering and, on the basis of the eligibility criteria prescribed in the original advertisement dated 21.02.2020, he applied for the post of Assistant Communication Officer. The applicant was permitted to participate in the selection process and appeared in the Computer Based Examination held on 09.11.2020, in which he was declared successful.
The applicant further submitted that, in the midst of the selection process, the respondents changed the Essential Qualification under the guise of correcting a typographical error, thereby altering the eligibility criteria after the applicant had already filled the application form. The said alteration of the Essential Qualification at a subsequent stage adversely affected the candidature of the applicant and could not have been made to his prejudice. The applicant had applied on the basis of the qualification prescribed in the original advertisement and, having successfully cleared the written examination, his candidature ought to have been considered in accordance with the eligibility conditions prevailing at the time of submission of his application. Therefore, the rejection of his candidature on the ground of non-fulfilment of the subsequently altered Essential Qualification is stated to be arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the candidature of the applicant was rightly rejected as he did not possess the requisite Essential Qualification prescribed for the post in question. The advertisement dated 21.02.2020 prescribed the Essential Qualification in accordance with the Recruitment Rules furnished by the Indenting Department, i.e. Directorate of Coordination, Police Wireless, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the corrigendum dated 02.03.2020 was issued only to rectify a typographical error in the Essential Qualification and did not amount to any change in the prescribed qualification criteria. The applicant possessed a B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering, whereas the prescribed Essential Qualification required a degree in Electronics, Electronics and Communication, Information Technology, Computer Science or Information and Communication Technology. Thus, the applicant did not fulfil the prescribed Essential Qualification.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the candidature of all the candidates was provisional at every stage of the selection process and mere appearance in the CBE or declaration of the applicant as successful therein did not confer any vested right upon him for appointment. Upon scrutiny of the documents, the applicant's candidature was found deficient on account of non-fulfilment of the Essential Qualification. The applicant was also afforded an opportunity to submit a representation against his rejection, which was duly considered by the User Department, but his representation was rejected on the same ground. The rejection of the applicant's candidature was in accordance with the prescribed eligibility conditions and the instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
We have considered the arguments, so raised by learned counsels for both the parties and perused the records.
The principal grievance of the applicant is that the Essential Qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Communication Officer was changed by the respondents in the midst of the selection process under the guise of correcting a typographical error and that, on the basis of the said altered qualification, his candidature was subsequently rejected. Admittedly, the applicant possessed a B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering and had applied for the post in question and after having been permitted to participate in the selection process and having successfully cleared the Computer Based Examination. Thereafter, his candidature was rejected on the ground that B. Tech in Electrical (EQ not fulfill) is not an essential qualification (EQ), meaning thereby essential qualification is not fulfilled by the applicant.
It reflects from the record that the original advertisement was issued on 21.02.2020 and thereafter, the respondents issued a corrigendum dated 02.03.2020, whereby the typographical error occurring in the Essential Qualification was rectified. Significantly, the corrigendum was issued prior to the last date prescribed for submission of the application form, i.e. 20.03.2020. Thus, the corrected Essential Qualification was available to all prospective candidates before the expiry of the last date for submission of applications. The applicant, therefore, cannot contend that the correction was made after he had submitted his application or after he had participated in the selection process. The CBE itself was conducted subsequently on 09.11.2020, i.e. several months after issuance of the corrigendum. Hence, the plea that the eligibility criteria were changed in the midst of the selection process, to the prejudice of the applicant, is not borne out from the record.
It is further evident from the material placed on record that the corrigendum dated 02.03.2020 was issued for correcting the word “of” by substituting it with the word “or” at the relevant place in the Essential Qualification. The respondents have specifically stated that the Essential Qualification was prescribed on the basis of the Recruitment Rules and the requisition furnished by the Indenting Department. The qualification prescribed for the post contemplated a degree in Electronics, Electronics and Communication, Information Technology, Computer Science or Information and Communication Technology. The applicant admittedly possesses a B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering. Electrical Engineering is not one of the disciplines specifically prescribed as an Essential Qualification for the post in question. Therefore, merely because the applicant was permitted to appear in the Computer Based Examination and was declared successful therein, the same would not confer upon him any right to be considered eligible for appointment when, upon scrutiny of his documents, he was found not to possess the prescribed Essential Qualification.
Further, as per the terms and conditions of the Advertisement, the candidature of every candidate was provisional at all stages of the recruitment process and was subject to verification of the prescribed eligibility conditions and the Commission would not undertake detailed scrutiny of applications at the stage of the Computer Based Examination and that the candidature of the candidates would remain provisional. It was further provided that if, at any stage of the recruitment process, it was found that a candidate did not fulfil any of the prescribed eligibility conditions, his candidature was liable to be cancelled. Thus, the applicant cannot derive any vested right merely from his having been permitted to participate in the examination or from his having qualified the Computer Based Examination.
It is also not in dispute that, upon scrutiny of the documents submitted by the applicant, his candidature was rejected with the specific observation that “B.Tech in Electrical (EQ not fulfil)”. The rejection list dated 13.01.2022 was thereafter issued, and the concerned candidates were afforded an opportunity to submit representations against their rejection. The applicant availed the said opportunity and submitted his representation dated 19.01.2022. The said representation was duly considered by the User Department, which again found that the applicant's B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering did not fulfil the prescribed Essential Qualification. Thus, the applicant was not denied any opportunity to raise his grievance against the rejection of his candidature.
It is also relevant to note that the applicant has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the degree of B.Tech. in Electrical Engineering is specifically prescribed in the Essential Qualification or that the Recruitment Rules permit such qualification to be treated as an eligible qualification. In matters relating to recruitment, the eligibility conditions prescribed by the competent authority have to be applied as notified, and a candidate who does not possess the prescribed Essential Qualification cannot claim eligibility merely on the basis of his participation in the selection process.
The selections are to be made as per the Rules. Rules cannot be relaxed for a particular person as the same is binding upon the candidate as well as employer. The eligibility criteria and conditions mentioned in the advertisement are to be followed strictly and no appointment can be made dehors the rules. The Apex Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. reported in 2011(12) SCC 85 has clearly held that no appointment can be made dehors the Rules.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the corrigendum dated 02.03.2020 was issued well before the last date for submission of the application form, i.e. 20.03.2020, and substantially before the applicant participated in the Computer Based Examination on 09.11.2020. Therefore, the contention that the respondents changed the Essential Qualification in the midst of the selection process or after the applicant had submitted his application form cannot be accepted. The applicant was required to satisfy the eligibility conditions as corrected and published prior to the last date of submission of applications. Since the applicant did not possess the prescribed Essential Qualification, his candidature was rightly rejected at the stage of scrutiny.
It is also pertinent to note that the applicant did not challenge the corrigendum dated 02.03.2020 at the time of its issuance, although the same was issued well before the last date for submission of the application form, i.e. 20.03.2020. The applicant, having knowledge of the corrected Essential Qualification, chose to participate in the selection process without raising any objection thereto. It was only after participating in the selection process and being unsuccessful at the stage of scrutiny of his educational qualification that the applicant has sought to contend that the Essential Qualification was changed/altered by the respondents. Such a contention, raised at this belated stage, cannot be accepted, particularly when the applicant had neither challenged the corrigendum at the relevant point of time nor objected to the eligibility criteria before participating in the selection process.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the rejection of the candidature of the applicant. Accordingly, the Original Application, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
No order as to costs.