Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Vaibhav Srivastava vs Staff Selection Commission on 16 February, 2026
OA No. 1109 of 2017
(Reserved on 11.02.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad, this the 16th day of February, 2026
Original Application No. 1109 of 2017
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
Vaibhav Srivastava Son of Hari Om Srivastava R/O 4/311 Vineet Khand
Gomti Nagar Lucknow.
....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Chandrika Prasad
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel Public
Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training
New Delhi.
2. Director, Staff Selection Commission, Block No. 12, C.G.O.
Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi.
3. Regional Director (Central Region) Staff Selection Commission 21-
23, Lowther Road Allahabad.
....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Mukesh Kumar
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri Chandrika Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
"(i) To issue an order or direction, directing the respondents to take office of option from the applicant and recommend for the appointment to the applicant on the post of Data Entry operator in Grade pay Rs.1900, in Central Government Offices.
(ii) To issue any other order or direction which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 1 of 4 OA No. 1109 of 2017
(iii) To award cost of Original Application in favour of the applicant."
3. The brief facts as narrated by the applicant is that the Staff Selection Commission published an advertisement/ a notice on 13.06.2015 for combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2), Examination 2015, for recruitment and appointment for the post of postal Assistant/ Sorting Assistant pay Band Rs. 5200-20200 Grade pay 2400, Date Entry operator P.B. 5200-20200 Grade pay 2400 Date Entry operator P.B. 5200-20200 Grade pay 1900, Lower Division clerk P.B. 5200-20200 Grade Pay 1900 in different Central Government Offices.
The applicant has the minimum qualification prescribed for the posts and filled up his application on-line for the post of Lower Division Clerk in grade pay Rs.1900/- and Data Entry Operator in Grade pay Rs.1900/- (L.E.) Category. He appeared in the examination and qualified for skilled test (D.E.S.T.). He qualified and was called for document verification for the post of Data Entry Operator. His documents were verified but his documents were not uploaded mentioning that the applicant has not applied for reference post 'D' i.e. Data Entry Operator in grade pay Rs.2400/-. The applicant has sent his representation dated 24.07.2017 to Staff Selection Commission. As he has applied for level L&E only i.e. Lower Division Clerk and Data Entry Operator in grade pay of Rs.1900/-, has qualified for the post of Data Entry Operator in Grade pay Rs.1900/- so not uploading his document and not providing him the applied job, is illegal, arbitrary and malafide. Hence, this OA.
4. The respondents have refuted the claim of the applicant by filing a counter affidavit and have submitted that the applicant has submitted his application under unreserved category and he was allowed to appear in the said examination purely on provisional basis subject to fulfilment of eligibility RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 2 of 4 OA No. 1109 of 2017 criteria. He was declared qualified for appearing in D.E.S,T. and typing test. He was successful in the D.E.S.T. and was called for document verification for the post of Data Entry Operator. The applicant opted for the post of Lower Division Clerk and Data Entry Operator. The applicant has not indicated post preference 'D' in his application form. The applicant is not found fit for Lower Division Clerk as his mistake percentage is 20.6 % in typing against allowed limit of 7 % of unreserved category and no candidate has been recommended for the post of 'E' category so he was not declared successful. On the basis of above submission, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted to dismiss the OA as devoid of merit.
5. In the rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for the applicant has repeated the submissions made in this OA and reiterated that he has applied for the post of Data Entry Operator in grade pay of Rs.1900/- and Lower Division Clerk in grade pay of Rs.1900/- so he should be declared successful for the Data Entry Operator in grade pay of Rs.1900/- .
6. We have heard the rival submissions and verified the documents available on record.
7. The contention of the applicant that he has participated in a selection process was successful for the post applied so denial of providing him job is arbitrary, malafide and illegal. The similar issue has been examined by various Courts and judgments were passed.
8. Hon'ble Apex Court has given various rulings regarding the above fact, of instance, in Civil Appeals No. 136 of 2020 with No. 137 of 2020 Mohd. Rashid v Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat and Others (2020) 2 SCC 582, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 3 of 4 OA No. 1109 of 2017 "12. The appellants who are aspirants for direct recruitment have no right for appointment merely because at one point of time the vacancies were advertised. The candidates such as the appellants cannot claim any right of appointment merely for the reason that they responded to an advertisement published on 12 th September, 2013.
Even after completion of the selection process, the candidates even on the merit list do not have any vested right to seek appointment only for the reason that their names appear on the merit list. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that a candidate seeking appointment to a civil post cannot be regarded to have acquired an indefeasible right to appointment in such post merely because of the appearance of his name in the merit list. This Court held as under:-
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in the State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165] ; Neelima Shangla (Miss) v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] or Jitender Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122 :
9. On the basis of above consideration and relying the case law mentioned above, this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the OA is devoid of merit, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order granted earlier is merged with this order. No order as to costs.
10. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member(Administrative) Member(Judicial)
RKM/
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA
Page 4 of 4