A candidate who clears all stages of a competitive recruitment process cannot claim a vested right to appointment if she fails to meet mandatory medical eligibility criteria explicitly stated in the recruitment notification. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, has reaffirmed that statutory and contractual conditions governing eligibility prevail over procedural success, even where selection appears complete.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Preeti Singh, applied for the post of Junior Engineer-II (Signal/Telecommunication) under Employment Notice No. 2/2006 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board. She qualified the written examination, submitted her post preferences, underwent document verification, and was declared successful in the final result dated 24.03.2008. She claimed to have passed the medical examination, though no medical fitness certificate was produced on record. Months later, on 14.12.2009, her candidature was cancelled on grounds of medical unfitness - specifically, blindness in the left eye and only partial vision in the right eye.
Procedural History
- 2006: Employment Notice No. 2/2006 issued, explicitly excluding physically disabled candidates from applying for JE-II (Signal/Telecommunication).
- March 2008: Applicant declared successful in final selection list.
- December 2009: Respondents cancelled her candidature after discovering her visual disability during scrutiny and obtaining clarification from the Railway Board.
- 2011: Applicant filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking quashing of the cancellation order and direction for appointment or alternative posting.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought: (i) quashing of the order cancelling her candidature; and (ii) direction for her appointment to the post for which she was selected or to any alternative post under Railway Board policy.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a candidate who successfully clears all stages of a recruitment process acquires a legal right to appointment when she is found to be ineligible under express medical conditions stipulated in the recruitment notification, and whether statutory reservation under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 can override such explicit disqualifications.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that: (i) her selection in the final list conferred a legitimate expectation and enforceable right to appointment; (ii) the Railway Board’s Circular RBE No. 90/2009 permitted alternative appointment for medically unfit candidates, and this policy was still operative at the time of her selection; (iii) Sections 32 and 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 mandate reservation irrespective of whether posts are formally identified, as the duty to identify lies with the cadre-controlling authority, not the recruiting agency; and (iv) the Supreme Court in National Federation of Blind v. UPSC & Ors. held that visual impairment cannot be a blanket bar to government employment.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents contended that: (i) the recruitment notification expressly prohibited physically disabled candidates from applying for JE-II (Signal/Telecommunication), a safety category post requiring defect-free vision; (ii) the post was never identified for reservation under the Disabilities Act, and the Railway Recruitment Board has no authority to identify posts or maintain reservation rosters; (iii) no medical fitness certificate was ever issued to the applicant, and her claim of passing medical examination was unsubstantiated; (iv) the policy for alternative appointment was withdrawn effective 25.05.2009, prior to the cancellation order, and could not be applied retrospectively; and (v) non-disclosure of a material disability at the time of application disentitles a candidate to equitable relief.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the recruitment notification’s express terms, the statutory framework under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and binding precedents. It emphasized that eligibility conditions are not mere formalities but substantive prerequisites for appointment. The Court noted that Clause 2.7 of the advertisement clearly stated: "for this notification, persons with disabilities should not apply" - a condition that was unambiguous and binding.
"Inclusion of a candidate's name in the select list or success in a selection process does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to appointment, particularly when the candidate is found to be ineligible under the governing rules or conditions of recruitment."
The Court distinguished National Federation of Blind v. UPSC & Ors., observing that the case involved posts where no explicit exclusion existed and where reservation was applicable. Here, the post was not identified for reservation, and the notification itself barred eligibility. The Tribunal held that reservation under Section 33 is contingent upon prior identification under Section 32, and the failure of the cadre-controlling authority to identify the post cannot be used to circumvent the recruitment notification’s express terms.
Regarding alternative appointment, the Court found no evidence that the applicant was eligible under any policy, as the circular she relied upon had been withdrawn before her candidature was cancelled. The absence of a medical fitness certificate further undermined her claim. The Court concluded that non-disclosure of a material disability at the time of application renders any claim for relief legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The applicant’s petition was dismissed. The Court held that express medical disqualification in a recruitment notification overrides procedural success, and statutory reservation cannot be invoked to override explicit eligibility conditions. No right to appointment or alternative posting arose in her favor.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Eligibility Conditions Are Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must advise clients that passing written exams or appearing on selection lists does not create enforceable rights if statutory or contractual eligibility criteria are unmet.
- Candidates must disclose all medical conditions at the time of application; concealment invalidates any subsequent claim.
Reservation Does Not Override Recruitment Notifications
- Reservation under the Disabilities Act, 1995 applies only to posts formally identified by the cadre-controlling authority.
- Recruiting agencies like RRBs cannot create reservation obligations; they are bound by the terms of the advertisement.
- Legal challenges based on statutory reservation must first establish that the post was identified for reservation.
Safety Category Posts Have Strict Standards
- Posts involving public safety (e.g., railway signaling, aviation, defense) are subject to mandatory medical standards.
- Courts will uphold such standards even if they result in exclusion, provided they are rationally connected to the functional requirements of the post.
- Alternative appointment policies cannot be invoked to circumvent these standards unless explicitly permitted by the notification.
