Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kranti Gaurav vs Nic on 30 April, 2026
1
Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 1127/2025
with
O.A. No. 1409/2025
Reserved on:- 16.04.2026
Pronounced on:- 30.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
O.A. No.1127/2025
1. Kranti Gaurav, age about 29 years_
S/o Sri Ram Sajiwan Verma
R/o H. No.188, Shivpuri Fattepur,
Maudaha, Hamirpur,
Uttar Pradesh - 210507
2. Ramnarayan Yadav
Age about 33 years
S/o Sri Devnarayan Yadav
R/o Village Para Bihari, Post Bisanda,
Tehsheel Baberu, Dist-Band,
Uttar Pradesh
3. Nidhi Rehani age about 32 yyears
D/o Sri Subhah Rehani
S/o 225, First Floor, HUDA Plots,
Sector-56, Gurugram,
Haryana --- 121011
4. Sakshi Upadhyay age about 32 years
S/o Sri Jagdish Chandra Upadhyay
R/o 363, Type-2, Sector-2, Sadiq Nagar,
New Delhi -- 110048.
5. Mamta age about 30 years
S/o Sri Ramesh Kumar
R/o 1453, Sector, 9-11, Hisar,
Haryana- 125001
6. Rini Chowdhury age about 38 years
D/o Sri Rabindra Chowdhury
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:47
ANI +05'30'
2
Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025
Court No. IV
R/o 29/12, Naskar Para Road,
Haridevpur, Kolkata-700041
7. Rahul Kumar Jain age about 32 years
S/o Sri Surendra Kumar Jain
R/o 76, Ware House Colony, Bajaria,
Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan 322001
8. Mallavarapu Nanaji age about 33 years
S/o Sri Mallavarapu Eswara Rao
R/o S Anandpuram, A Koduru,
K Kotapadu, District
Visakhapatanam - 531022
9. Kandula Nageswararao age about 34 years
S/o Sri Ramakrishna
R/o Door No.23-19-7, B.C. Road,
Seetharam Nagar, Gajuwaka,
Visakhapatnam-530026
10. Gaurav Mishra age about 30 years
S/o Sri Brijesh Kumar Mishra
R/o House no.1/586, Ruchi Khand-1,
Sharda Nagar, Lucknow-226002
11. N.S. Srimadhur age about 31 years
S/o Sri N.S. George
R/o 151, Jandamanu Street Extension,
Puttur, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh 517583
12. Pankaj Kumar age about 34 years
S/o Sri Anjani Kumar Shrivastav
R/o Vill-Narayanpur, PO + PS Saraiya,
Muzaffarpur, Bihar 843126.
13. Sunil Kumar age about 36 years.
S/o Late Sri Ramashish Choudhary
R/o House no.217, Astha Colony,
Prem Nagar Road No.4, Singh More Hatia,
Ranchi, Jharkhand 834003.
14. Ekta Verma age about 37 years
D/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Verma
R/o BH-1210, Raj Nagar Extension,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
15. Suhas Harbola age about 35 years
S/o Sri Krishna Chandra Harbola
R/o HC 5/25, Lajpat Apartment Lajpat Nagar,
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:47
ANI +05'30'
3
Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025
Court No. IV
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh 201005.
16. Atul Sethia age about 29 years
S/o Sri Anil Sethia,
R/o Flat 6403, Block 6, Neha Apartments,
Athgaon, Guwahati -781001.
17. D Suryachand Gopavajhula age about 35 years"
S/o Sri Venkata Bhaskar . -
R/o Flat no 213, Lakshmi's Shell Serenity Apartment,
Mayuri Nagar Main Road, Miyapur,
Hyderabad, 500049.
18. Pratul age about 29 years
S/o Sri Raj Pal
R/o #240, Krishna Enclave, Khanpur, Kharar,
SAS Nagar, Punjab 140301.
19. Stanzin Angmo age about 32 years
D/o Sri Lobzang Namgyal
R/o House No.032, A Special, Housing Colony,
Leh Ladakh 794101
20. Sonu Kumar age about 28 years
S/o Late Sri Shankar Pandit
R/o Vill - Kajarsan, Post - Nandamura, Block
Raghunathpur, Siwan, Bihar-841203.
|
21. Amit Mohindru age about 34 years
S/o Sri Vijay Mohindru
R/o 50, Chaman Garden Extension
Railway Road, Karnal-132001
22. Anand Raj age about 30 years
S/o Sri Ashok Kumar
R/o Gautam Nagar Gangjala,
Near Labour Office, Ward No.12,
Dist-Saharsa, Bihar-852201
23. Bandi Sai Kiran age about 29 years
S/o Sri Bandi Venkateswara Rao
R/o Sidimbi Agraharam, Edepalli, Machilipatnam,
Krishna, Andhra Pradesh 521001.
24. Pragya age about 36 years
D/o Satyamitra
R/o F-601, Civitech Sampriti,
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:47
ANI +05'30'
4
Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025
Court No. IV
Sector 77, Noida 201301.
25. Pradeep Ram Dumne age about 33 years
S/o Sri Ram Shettiba Dumne
R/o 1-3-782/26, Nagarbai Shettiba Nivas,
Radhakrishna Nagari Near Vijay Nagar,
Nanded, Maharashtra-431602.
26. Lakshmi U Menon age about 35 years
S/o Sri K V Unikrishna Menon
R/o Lakshmi U Menon, Karukacham Veedu,
Karalakam Ward, Thathampally P O
Alappuzha -- 688013.
27. M. Keerthana age about 29 years
S/o M.D. Manivannan
R/o No 47/3, Unique Flats,
Amar Nagar, Kadaperi,
West Tambaram, Chennai 600045.
28. Amita age about 29 years
D/o Sri Jawala Singh
R/o Near Govt. School, Main Temple Road,
Trilokpur, District Sirmaur,
Himachal Pradesh, 173030.
29. Panchumarthi Hema Siva Krishna
age about 30 years,
S/o Sri Panchumarthi Venkateswara Rao
R/o 2-56, Nandam Bazaar, Ghantasala,
Krishna Dt, Andhra Pradesh, 521133.
30. Ritesh Mujawdiya age about 35 years
S/o Sri Radheshyam Mujawdiya
R/o Porwal Mohalla, Ward No. 3,
Shamgarh, Madhya Pradesh, 458883.
31. Ajay Kumar Chhabra age about 33 years
S/o Atul Kumar Chhabra
R/o B 259 Second Floor Sector 50 Beside RBL Bank
Noida 201301.
32. Vikas age about 35 years
S/o Sri Ram Davar Yadav
R/o G-188 A, Lajpat Nagar, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201005.
33. Shaik Nawashareef age about 30 years
S/o Sri Shaik Mastanvali
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:47
ANI +05'30'
5
Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025
Court No. IV
R/o 5-249, Main Road, Gkonduru (V&M),
Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh -521229,
34. Srimathi R, age about 36 years
D/o Sri Ramamoorthy
R/o No. 28 B, Ground floor, Yadhisree Apartments,
Kaagidhakaara Street, Tiruvarur-610001
35. Sourav Saha age about 28 years
S/o Sri Dulal Saha
R/o No. 2 Goreswar, Rabindranagar
Goreswar, PO : Goreswar
Dist : Tamulpur BTR, Assam-781366.
36. Swaminathan N, age about 30 years
S/o Sri Nedunchezhiyan A,
R/o Plot No.137, DR MGR Nagar,
Pillayarpatti Post, Thanjavur,
Tamil Nadu 613404.
37. Deepak Gambhir age about 43 years
S/o Sri Om Parkash Gambhir
R/o A-343, Sector 2, Rohini Avantika
Near Aggarwal Sweets,
New Delhi-110085.
38. Subanithya R. Age about 42 years
D/o Sri Ranjan M.
R/o Plot No 190, Ashok Nagar, 1st Street,
2nd Cross Street, Koodal Nagar Extn.
Madurai, Tamil Nadu -625018.
39. Hrishikesh Bhunia age about 32 years
S/o Sri Dhirendranath Bhunia
R/o Vill Madhabpur, PO Jhanjia Nankar,
PS Narayangarh, District Paschim Medinipur
Pin -721437
40. Veeresh Patel age about 36 years
S/o Sri Lal Mani Verma
R/o C-37/1 Awas Vikas Engineers Colony,
Near Gurdev Cinema,
Lakhanpur, Kanp.
41. Daphne Kordor War age about 35 years
D/o Sri T Nongkhlaw
R/o Mawlai Kyntonmassar Block-B,
Shillong-793022, Meghalaya
42. Vishakha Atmaram Dhotre
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:47
ANI +05'30'
6
Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025
Court No. IV
Age about 32 years
D/o Sri Atmaram Kisan Dhotre
R/o Flat No.B2/3 Moraya Residency Phase I,
Sus road, Pashan, Pune,
Maharashtra- 411021
...Applicants
VERSUS
1. National Informatics Centre (NIC)
Through its Director General
National Informatics Centre
A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi- 110003
Email : [email protected]
2. National Institute of Electronics & Information
Technology
Through its Director General
NIELIT Bhawan, Plot No.3, PSP Pocket,
Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077
Email:- [email protected]
3. Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
(MeitY), Government of India,
Through its Secretary,
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
Email :- [email protected]
...Respondents
O.A. No.1409/2025
1. Devender Singh
Aged about 34 years
S/o Subhash
R/o House No. 1398, Gali No. 4B,
Swatantra Nagar, Narela, Bankner,
North West Delhi,
Delhi-110 040
2. Bharti
Aged about 30 years
C/o Amit Narwal
R/o #C15, DC Colony, Sector-13
Kurukshetra,
Haryana-136118
3. Kaushlya Kumari
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:47
ANI +05'30'
7
Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025
Court No. IV
Aged about 33 years
D/o Bhagirath Singh,
Natha Ki Dhaani, Kolida,
Koleera, Sikar, Rajasthan-332031
4. Arzoo Parihar
Aged about 34 years
W/o Vaibhav Soni
R/o RG-4, Tillar Colony,
Vard 2 Agar, Agar Malwa,
Tehsil Agar Malawa
District Agar Malwa
Madhya Pradesh-465441
5. Harvinder Singh
Aged about 36 yrs
S/o Paramjeet Singh
R/o C-6/4, Radio Colony,
Radio Colony Gate 1
Kingsway Camp,
VTC: Dr. Muhkerjee Nagar,
PO: Dr. Mukherjee Nagar
District: North West Delhi
State: Delhi.
6. Akanksha Bhadoria
Aged about 33 years
D/o Harendra Singh Bhadoria
R/o 108, Indramani Nagar,
Gird, Gwalior,
Madhya Pradesh -474005.
...Applicants
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Electronics and
Information technology
Address: Electronics Niketan, 6,
Lodhi Rd, CGO Complex,
Pragati Vihar,
New Delhi,
Delhi 110003
2. National Informatics Centre (NIC)
Through Director General
Headquarters is located at
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:47
ANI +05'30'
8
Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025
Court No. IV
A-Block, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003.
3. National Institute of Electronics &
Information Technology
Through Director General
NIELIT Bhawan, Plot No. 3, PSP
Pocket, Sector-8, Dwarka, New
Delhi-110077,
Phone:- 91-11-2530 8300
with 29 lines
Fax:- 91-11-2436 3335
Helpline No. : 011-25308303.
...Respondents
{By Advocates for applicants:Mr. Nilansh Gaur in OA No.
1127/2025, Dr. S S Hooda in OA No. 1409/2025, Ms.
Kawaljit Kochar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Utkarsh Vats
and Mr. Deepanshu}
{By Advocates for respondents: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar in OA No.
1127/2025, Ms. Neelima Rathore in OA No. 1409/2025 }
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:47
ANI +05'30'
9
Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) Since a common question of facts and law arises in the present O.A.s, they are being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are primarily being extracted from O.A. No. 1127/2025 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The facts of the case as also reflected in record of proceedings dated 12.01.2026 are reproduced below for the sake of brevity:
"The present Original Application has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"8.1 To quash and set aside the Notice for Cancellation of Recruitment Process dated 25.02.2025 issued pursuant to Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 dated 20.10.2022;
8.2 To direct the respondents to issue appointment letters to the applicants for the posts of Scientist 'C' / Scientist 'D', as the case may be;
8.3 To call for the complete records of the recruitment process; and 8.4 To pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice."
2. At the outset, Mr. Nilansh Gaur, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned Notice for Cancellation of Recruitment Process dated 25.02.2025 is vague, non-specific, non-speaking and arbitrary. The impugned notice merely states that the recruitment is cancelled due to "administrative reasons", without disclosing any material particulars, justification or application of mind, rendering the action ex facie unsustainable in law.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 10 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV
3. Learned counsel submits that the applicants are fully eligible candidates who participated in a recruitment process initiated for appointment to Group 'A' Scientific and Technical posts, namely Scientist 'C' and Scientist 'D', in the National Informatics Centre (NIC) under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). The recruitment process is governed by statutory Recruitment Rules notified vide G.S.R. 681(E) dated 18.08.2022, issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
4. Pursuant thereto, Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 dated 20.10.2022 was issued for recruitment to the posts of:
o Scientist 'C', o Scientist 'D', o Scientist 'E', and o Scientist 'F'.
Initially, 12 posts of Scientist 'D' and 112 posts of Scientist 'C' were notified, which were later enhanced to approximately 141 posts for Scientist 'C'.
5. The advertisement prescribed the eligibility criteria and four stages of selection, namely:
o Screening Test, o Academic Evaluation, o Document Verification, and o Interview / Personal Interaction.
6. The applicants applied, qualified the Screening Test conducted between 18.03.2023 and 21.03.2023, underwent Academic Evaluation by the Academic Evaluation Committee (AEC), appeared in interviews conducted between 18.01.2024 and 20.01.2024, and were duly included in the Provisional Selection List dated 15.03.2024.
7. At this stage, only issuance of appointment letters remained. It is an admitted position that:
a. no appointment letters were issued, and b. no joining took place.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant draws our attention to the detailed advertisement of Recruitment for ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 11 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV Scientific & Technical Posts (Annexure A-3) wherein the norms for the post of Scientist - C & D reads as under:-
Norms for the post of Scientist-C S. Particulars Weightage of Marks Max No Marks
(a) Matriculation 0.1 mark for each 10 (Class X) percent marks
(b) 10+2 0.2 mark for each 20 (Intermediate) percent marks
(c) GATE Score 0.05 mark for each 5 percent marks (d) Essential 0.4 mark for each 40 Qualification i.e. percent in the degree of marks basic qualification essential qualification.
required for the post (e) Ph.D. in relevant Full marks for awarded 10 field Ph.D. Degree. marks (f) Experience in 4.5 marks for each 18 Relevant field completed year in marks (maximum 4 years Government/Semi- in Govt./Semi- Government in the Govt./private relevant field at an would be appropriate level, after considered) completion of essential qualification.
3 marks for each
completed year in
private organization in
the relevant field and at
an appropriate level
after completion of
essential qualification
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:47
ANI +05'30'
12
Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025
Court No. IV
(g) Journal (i). Web of Science 12
Publications [SCI(Science Citation Marks
Index), SSCI (Social
Sciences Citation Index),
SCI-Expanded (Science
Citation Index
Expanded)]OR
(ii). SCOPUS
2 marks for publication
of each paper in
International Journal
and 1 mark for
Publication of each
paper in National
Journal, having Impact
Factor of at-least One
and indexed in any of
the following:
(h) Conference 1 mark for each 5
Publications Conference Paper marks
presented and published
in
SCOPUS/IEEE/Springer
indexed Conference
proceedings.
(i) Interview/Personal 30
Interaction marks
Total 150
marks
The above mentioned norms are further subject to General Notes given in ANNEXURE-V Norms for the post of Scientist-D S. Particulars Weightage of Marks Max No Marks ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 13 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV
(a) Matriculation 0.08 mark for each 8 (Class X) percent marks
(b) 10+2 0.12 mark for each 12 (Intermediate) percent marks
(c) GATE Score 0.05 mark for each 5 percent marks
(d) Essential 0.4 mark for each 40 Qualification i.e. percent in the degree of marks basic qualification Essential Qualification required for the post
(e) Ph.D. in relevant Full marks for awarded 10 field Ph.D. Degree. marks
(f) Experience in 3 marks for each 24 Relevant field completed year in marks (maximum 8 years Government/Semi- in Govt./Semi- Government in the Govt./Private relevant field at an would be appropriate level, after considered) completion of essential qualification.
2 marks for each
completed year in
private organization in
the relevant field and at
an appropriate level
after completion of
essential qualification.
(g) Journal 2 marks for publication 14
Publications of each paper in marks
International Journal
and 1 mark for
publication of each
paper in National
Journal, having Impact
Factor of at-least One
and indexed in any of
the following:
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:47
ANI +05'30'
14
Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025
Court No. IV
(i). Web of Science [SCI
(Science Citation Index),
SSCI (Social Sciences
Citation Index), SCI-
Expanded (Science
Citation Index
Expanded)] OR
(ii). SCOPUS
(h) Conference 1 mark for each 7
Publications Conference Paper marks
presented and published
in
SCOPUS/IEEE/Springer
indexed Conference
proceedings.
(i) Interview/Personal 30
interaction marks
Total 150
Marks
The above mentioned norms are further subject to General Notes given in ANNEXURE-V
9. In support of his case, learned counsel for the respondents draws our attention to the counter affidavit and submits as under:-
9.1 At this advanced stage, the respondents issued the impugned notice dated 25.02.2025, cancelling the recruitment only for Scientist 'C' and Scientist 'D', citing vague "administrative reasons". No reasons are disclosed in the impugned notice. The alleged justification is sought to be introduced only in the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that "a substantial number of candidates do not fulfil qualitative requirements".
9.2. Learned counsel submits that:
the concept of "qualitative requirements" finds no mention in the Recruitment Rules or Advertisement, it has been introduced post-selection, and such post facto alteration of criteria is impermissible.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 15 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV 9.3 The counter affidavit discloses that:
the AEC met on 18.07.2023 (initial evaluation), again on 29.12.2023 (after complaints), interviews were held in January 2024, and a third AEC exercise was undertaken in August 2024, followed by reconstitution of AEC on 25.10.2024.
This third exercise and reconstitution took place after interviews and provisional selection, amounting to unauthorized review / re-evaluation, for which no provision exists in the recruitment scheme. This is a classic case of changing the rules of the game after the game has been played.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the following case laws:-
(i) Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors., MANU/SC/1179/2024;
(ii) State of Assam and Ors. Vs. Arabinda Rabha and Ors, MANU/SC/0340/2025;
(iii) The State of Tripura and Ors. Vs. Arunabha Saha and Ors., MANU/SC/1205/2025
11. In addition to the aforesaid contentions, Dr. S. S. Hooda, learned counsel for the applicants in OA No. 1409/2025, draws our attention to clause 2(b) of the detailed Advertisement (Advt. No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2) regarding Minimum Relevant Experience, which reads as under:
"b)Minimum Relevant Experience Post No. of Description Years of Experience Scientist- 4 years In Research and/or development C in Industrial and Academic Scientist- 8 years Institutions or Science and D Technology organizations or in Scientist- 12 years both.
E [Refer Corrigendum to Detailed Advertisement in the web portal www.calicut.nielit.in under Point 1 of Application process].
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 16 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV Scientist- i) 18 years Research or Development in F 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 Sciences.
iii) Published research work of high standard.
11.1 It is also an admitted position that no fraud or malpractice was committed by the applicants herein, as per RTI replies placed on record at Annexure A-20. Another RTI reply (Annexure A-23) states that, at best, queries were raised in respect of only seven candidates (UR-6 and OBC-1) for the post of Scientist 'D', and none for Scientist 'C'. All such cases were segregable, and no issue pertaining to the SC category was found. Hence, cancellation of the entire recruitment process is grossly disproportionate and arbitrary.
11.2 He further submits that it is not disputed that candidates selected for Scientist 'E' under the same advertisement were allowed to join, whereas recruitment for Scientist 'C' and 'D' alone was cancelled, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11.3 Further, the respondents have falsely pleaded that NIELIT conducted the academic evaluation, whereas RTI replies and Office Memorandum dated 10.02.2021 establish that the evaluation was conducted by the AEC constituted by MeitY, rendering the said statement factually incorrect.
11.4 In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the following case laws:-
i. Chandrakala Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 129; (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 484; 2012 SC OnLine SC 38: Higher qualifications should be treated as "equivalent" to lower required qualifications if they don't dilute the educational standard.
ii. Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 631; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 161: Recruitment processes may be cancelled entirely if systemic fraud or irregularities make it impossible to distinguish honest candidates from dishonest ones. iii. Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (2025) 2 SCC 1; 2024 SCC OnLine ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 17 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV SC 3184: The "rules of the game" regarding selection criteria cannot be changed by the employer once the recruitment process has already commenced. iv. Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central Railway & Ors. (2019) 12 SCC 798; (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 693; 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2569: The government cannot arbitrarily refuse to appoint candidates from a replacement panel/waitlist when vacancies exist and no valid justification is provided.
v. Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47; 1991 SCC (L&S) 800; 1991 INSC 111: Inclusion in a merit list does not grant a candidate an indefeasible right to appointment, provided the state's decision not to fill vacancies is bona fide.
vi. Anamica Mishra & Ors. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Ors. 1990 (Supp) SCC 692; 1991 SCC (L&S) 605: Where a recruitment error is found, only the stage affected by the error should be cancelled and redone rather than scrapping the entire selection process.
12. Ms. Kawaljit Kochar, learned Senior Advocate, who has filed an application seeking impleadment, submits that no discrepancies were found in respect of candidates belonging to the SC category.
13. Opposing the grant of relief, Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, submits that Applicant Nos. 1, 3 to 14, 17 to 23, 25, 27, 31, 33, 34, 39, 41 and 42 did not qualify the selection process. It is further submitted that Applicant No. 11 has expired, and Applicant No. 6 did not qualify for the post of Scientist 'D'."
3. Mr. Nilansh Gaur, learned counsel for the applicants in O.A. No. 1127/2025 further submitted that the present O.A. has been filed by the applicants, who were provisionally selected for the posts of Scientist 'C' and Scientist 'D' in NIC, challenging the arbitrary and discriminatory cancellation of the recruitment process vide notice dated 25.02.2025, despite ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 18 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV declaration of final results on 15.03.2024 and completion of the selection process.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents acted illegally by selectively cancelling only these posts while proceeding with appointments for higher posts, and by constituting a third AEC post facto to introduce new eligibility criteria, thereby changing the rules of the game after its conclusion, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
3.2. Learned counsel placed reliance upon Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (2025) 2 SCC 1.
3.3. Learned counsel argued that the alleged complaints, which form the purported basis of the respondents' action, pertain only to a single EWS category candidate and are ex facie frivolous and motivated, having been submitted by a group of six individuals, including a waitlisted candidate at Serial No. 1 of the EWS reserve list, with the intent to displace the selected candidate. Learned counsel added that these complaints merely draw an untenable comparison with UPSC criteria and do not raise any substantive illegality in the selection process, and were in fact disposed of by the NIC Nodal Officer without any adverse finding. The alleged complaints thus lack evidentiary basis and no inquiry has ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 19 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV been conducted, while the ambiguity in "appropriate level" of experience ought to have been clarified in the advertisement itself, failing which the benefit must accrue to candidates, as held in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of J&K & Ors., (2015) 17 SCC 709.
4. M.A. No. 326/2026 in OA No. 1127/2025 has been filed seeking impleadment of two similarly situated candidates, T. Rekha and Gadadasu Mounika, as co-applicants on the ground that they share an identical cause of action with the existing applicants. It is stated in the M.A. that these candidates had applied under the same Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2, successfully cleared all stages of the recruitment process, were included in the final result dated 15.03.2024, and are equally aggrieved by the impugned cancellation dated 25.02.2025. Their inclusion is sought to ensure complete and effective adjudication of common questions of law and fact relating to the legality of the cancellation, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions. It is thus contended that they are necessary and proper parties, and their impleadment is essential for a comprehensive and final resolution of the dispute.
4.1. Mr. Kawaljit Kohlan, learned senior counsel for the applicants in M.A. submitted that the applicants have ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 20 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV challenged the arbitrary cancellation of the recruitment for the post of Scientist 'C' despite having successfully completed all stages of the selection process and securing high merit positions (Serial No. 05 in OBC and 14 in SC list) along with excellent interview scores (27/30 and 24/30 respectively), thereby establishing their eligibility and suitability strictly in terms of Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2.
4.2. Learned senior counsel contended that the recruitment process is bound by the criteria expressly stipulated in the advertisement and cannot be altered post facto, and the Respondents' action in introducing a new eligibility condition relating to "appropriate pay level" after declaration of results amounts to an impermissible change in the "rules of the game," violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Petitioners emphasize that the eligibility conditions for Scientist 'C' & 'D' were identical in wording and implementation to those for Scientist 'E' & 'F', for which appointments were duly granted without any such reinterpretation, making the selective cancellation discriminatory and arbitrary.
4.3. Learned senior counsel argued that the constitution of a third Academic Evaluation Committee (AEC) and subsequent imposition of pay-level filters, absent in both the Recruitment Rules and the original advertisement, has excluded a large ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 21 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV number of candidates despite no allegation of malpractice at any stage, as even acknowledged in RTI responses.
4.4. Reliance is placed on Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v.
Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (supra), which categorically prohibits alteration of selection criteria after commencement of recruitment.
5. Mr. S. S. Hooda, learned counsel for the applicants in O.A. No. 1409/2025 submitted that the present OA challenges the impugned Notice dated 25.02.2025 whereby the respondents arbitrarily cancelled the recruitment process for the posts of Scientist 'C' and 'D' under Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2, despite the applicants having been duly declared provisionally selected after completion of all stages including document verification and interview.
5.1. It was argued that the cancellation is ex facie illegal, discriminatory and violative of Article 14, as the respondents have selectively cancelled only these posts while allowing recruitment for Scientist 'E' and 'F' to stand on identical criteria.
5.2. Learned counsel contended that the sole ground cited, non-prescription of experience at specific pay levels (Level 7/E-1 and Level 10/E-3), finds no mention either in the Recruitment Rules, 2022 or in the original advertisement, and has been introduced retrospectively, amounting to an ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 22 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV impermissible change in the "rules of the game" after conclusion of the selection process.
5.3. Learned counsel further contended that as per Rule 3(iii) and Rule 4A(i), only years of relevant experience were required for direct recruitment, and pay-level conditions apply exclusively to absorption/deputation, making their importation into direct recruitment legally untenable.
5.4. Learned counsel argued that the internal note-sheets dated 22.11.2024 and 10.02.2025 themselves reveal that cancellation was adopted merely to avoid legal complications rather than due to any illegality in the selection, thereby establishing mala fide.
5.5. Reliance is placed on Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (supra) which holds that eligibility criteria cannot be altered mid-process; K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512, prohibiting post facto changes after completion of selection; and Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of J&K, (supra), mandating that ambiguities in advertisement must operate in favour of candidates.
6. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents in their respective O.A. submitted that the cancellation of recruitment for the posts of Scientist 'C' and 'D' under Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 is a bona fide and reasoned administrative decision taken to preserve the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 23 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV integrity of the selection process and ensure that only duly qualified candidates are appointed to important Group 'A' supervisory posts.
6.1. Learned counsel contended that although the recruitment was conducted through a structured three-stage process, screening test, academic evaluation by duly constituted committees, and interview, and a provisional merit list was published on 15.03.2024, the respondents received numerous complaints and RTIs alleging irregularities in shortlisting and eligibility. Upon detailed scrutiny of the dossiers received from NIELIT, it emerged that a significant proportion of candidates included in the provisional select and reserve lists did not possess the requisite experience "in the relevant field at an appropriate level," as required under the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement.
6.2. Learned counsel argued that the Academic Evaluation Committee, when tasked with re-examining the records, recommended objective benchmarks to interpret "appropriate level," such as experience at Pay Level 7/E-1 for Scientist 'C' and Pay Level 10/E-3 for Scientist 'D', and found that earlier evaluation had erroneously granted marks to candidates lacking such level of experience, thereby vitiating the selection.
6.3. It was further argued that re-casting the merit list after such re-evaluation would have led to large-scale displacement ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 24 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV of already shortlisted candidates and inevitable litigation;
hence, cancellation of the entire process was the most legally sustainable and equitable course.
6.4. Learned counsel highlighted the fact that a provisional select list does not create any indefeasible right to appointment, particularly when no offer letters had been issued, and the employer retains the authority to cancel a flawed selection to prevent appointment of ineligible candidates. The learned counsel also highlighted that a fresh advertisement has been issued with clarified parameters for "appropriate level" of experience, while retaining the original cut-off date and granting fee exemptions to earlier applicants, thereby balancing fairness to candidates with the necessity of maintaining eligibility standards and administrative propriety.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record. Since the issues involved in the present O.A.s are identical and arise out of a common set of facts and law, the decision rendered in one O.A. shall equally govern and have a bearing on the remaining connected matters.
8. ANALYSIS :
Polgár's life work offers a compelling argument: genius isn't born -- it's made"-Nevelj zsenit! (Raise a Genius! )Budapest, ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 25 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV 1989 Laszlo Polgar:Translated from Esperanto by Gordon Tisher Vancouver, 2017 8.1 The core question of law arising for consideration in the present Original Applications is whether the respondents were justified in cancelling the entire recruitment process at a post-
selection stage, after completion of interviews and publication of the provisional merit list, on the ground of alleged lack of clarity in assessing candidates' experience at an "appropriate level" as contemplated under the advertisement.
8.2 In this context, it becomes necessary to examine whether any objective standards, guidelines, or benchmarks existed at the time of issuance of the advertisement to determine the meaning and scope of the expression "appropriate level."
Admittedly, the term "appropriate level" was neither defined in the advertisement nor in the applicable Recruitment Rules, thereby leaving its interpretation open-ended and incapable of uniform application.
8.3 "Appropriate" means "suitable or acceptable for a particular situation" - Collins Dictionary.
(Linked to concepts of suitability, reasonableness, and proportionality.) ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 26 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV 8.4 If a statute does not define a term, courts generally interpret it based on its ordinary, natural, and familiar meaning in common parlance.
8.5 In Civil Appeal No. 3123 of 2020, Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister & Anr., Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"6.....The duty of the judicature is to act upon the true intention of the legislature, the mens or sententia legis. (See: G. Narayanaswami v. G. Pannerselvam(1972) 3 SCC 717, South Asia Industries Private Ltd v. S. Sarup Singh and others1965 SCR (3) 829, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse(1997) 6 SCC 312 and J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan(2003) 5 SCC 134). The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature must be found in the words used by the legislature itself(Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, 1958 (1) SCR 360).Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. has famously said in a letter, "I do not care what their intention was. I only want to know what the words mean."(Cited in Felix Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 47, No. 4, 527-546 (1947), 538). If the language of the meaning of the statute is plain, there is no need for construction as legislative intention is revealed by the apparent meaning(Adams Express Company v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 238 US 190 (1915). Legislative intent must be primarily ascertained from the language used in statute itself.(United States v. Goldenberg, 168 US 95 (1897).
7. In his book Purposive Interpretation in Law,(Aharon Barak, Purposive Interpretation in Law, (Sari Bashi transl.), (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005),Aharon Barak says that constitutional language like the language of any legal text plays a dual role. On the one hand, it sets the limits of interpretation. The language of the Constitution is not clay in the hands of the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 27 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV interpreter, to be molded as he or she sees fit. A Constitution is neither a metaphor nor a non- binding recommendation. On the other hand, the language of the Constitution is a source for its purpose. There are other sources, to be sure, but constitutional language is an important and highly credible source of information. The fact that we may learn the purpose of a Constitution from sources external to it does not mean that we can give a Constitution a meaning that is inconsistent with its explicit or implicit language. Interpretation cannot create a new constitutional text. Talk of Judges amending the Constitution through their interpretation of the Constitution is just a metaphor. The claim that a constitutional text limits but does not command is true only for the limited number of cases in which, after exhausting all interpretive tools, we can still extract more than one legal meaning from the constitutional language and must therefore leave the final decision to judicial discretion. In these exceptional cases, language provides a general direction but does not draw a precise map of how to reach the destination. Usually, however, constitutional language sets not only the limits of interpretation, but also its specific content.(Id, 374-375)
8. It is a cardinal principle applicable to all kinds of statutes that you may not for any reason attach to a statutory provision a meaning which the words of that provision cannot reasonably bear. If they are capable of more than one meaning, then you can choose between these meanings, but beyond that the Court must not go.(Jones v D.P.P. [1962] AC. 635 ). Lord Parker, CJ observed in R. v. Oakes[1959] 2 Q.B. 350 there is no ground for reading in words according to what may be 'the supposed intention of Parliament'.
******
11. The words of a statute, when there is a doubt about their meaning, are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise between the subject of the enactment and the object which the legislature has used. Their meaning is found not so much in a strictly grammatical or etymological propriety of language, nor even in its popular use, as in the subject or in the occasion on which they are used, and the object to be attained.(Workmen of ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 28 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV Dimakuchi Tea Estate v Managenment of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, 1958 SCR 1156).
12. It is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that the expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they best harmonise with the object of the statute, and which effectuate the object of the legislature. (M/s New India Sugar Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 459.However, the object- oriented approach cannot be carried to the extent of doing violence to the plain language used by re- writing the section or structure words in place of the actual words used by the legislature. C. I. T v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 280.
(emphasis supplied) 8.6 In Civil Appeal Nos. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.
7930-7931 of 2020), Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. & Ors., 2025 INSC 425, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"36. We hasten to add that whether or not the action of the employer to exclude an aspirant from the process of selection (on the ground that either he is over qualified for a particular post or has qualifications which, being over and above what is ordained by statutory rules or rules framed under the proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution, does not match the qualification specifically required) is justified has to be decided considering the rules governing the selection, the qualifications prescribed, the nature of duty to be performed, the nature of service to be rendered and a host of other factors. It has to be remembered that, at times, the employer's need to have the right people at the right place, and not always the higher qualified, has to be conceded. We know of decisions holding that over-qualification cannot be a disqualification since such an approach amounts to discouraging the acquisition of qualifications on the one hand and on the other, such an approach could be seen as arbitrary, discriminatory and not in national interest. However, this principle cannot be put in a straitjacket imposing rigid or inflexible rules or norms. Lack of public ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 29 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV employment opportunities in sufficient numbers may force even a Master degree holder to apply for the job of a peon but, if he is appointed upon his application being favourably considered, what happens to the aspirants who have not had the means of pursuing study beyond the 12th standard? Do they remain unemployed for ever, if all or majority of the posts of peon are filled up by such degree holders? What happens if the Master degree holder, in pursuit of greener pastures, leaves the post of Peon for a better and secured higher job commensurate with his qualifications after a couple of years? Does it not, in such a case, burden the public exchequer by requiring the employer to initiate a fresh selection process? Is not the State, as a model employer, obliged to ensure that the posts of peon are filled up only by those having the basic qualification, and not by over qualified candidates, for sub-serving the common good? Does not the State have the obligation to strive to ensure that all citizens have adequate means of livelihood? These are questions which no Court can afford to ignore. We end by saying that each case that comes before the Court has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and the problem that it presents for resolution and that there can be no universally accepted rule that every time, a higher-qualified candidate is to be preferred to a candidate who matches the essential qualification required for the post."
8.7 InCivil Appeal Nos. 4426-4466 of 2023, Partha Das & Ors. v. The State of Tripura & Ors., 2025 INSC 1049, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"40. Applying the above principles of law, it can safely be concluded that executive instructions issued under Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India cannot override the act done under the statute and the rules made thereunder. The executive instructions can only supplement the provisions of the act and the rules in case of any ambiguity or if gaps are to be filled but such executive instructions cannot supplant the specific provisions which already occupy the field. It is not the case of the government that to fill the gaps and to supplement the TSR Act and TSR Rules, the NRP is relevant, ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 30 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV therefore, Abeyance Memorandum or Cancellation Memorandum may be upheld. In absence of the same, in our view, the action of the government in cancelling the process of recruitment for the post of Enrolled Followers is not justified and would amount to arbitrary exercise of power.
...
45. It goes without saying that certain level of discretion must be given to the State but merely suggesting that a decision to keep an ongoing recruitment process in abeyance and its subsequent cancellation was in the larger public interest, is not sufficient. The burden is on the State to justify the decision on the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and show how its decision was in furtherance of larger public interest.
46. In our considered opinion, the State has miserably failed in discharging such burden, and in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are unable to agree with the contention of the State that the decision to keep the ongoing recruitment process in abeyance and its subsequent cancellation was in the larger public interest.
...
Further held "58. In the present case, it is not that the State has decided to fill up only some of the available vacancies, but rather it has decided to do away with the recruitment process altogether. It goes without saying that the State's decision not to appoint a person who has been placed on the select list must not be arbitrary and must be rooted in objective reasoning. The recruitment process, especially when it is conducted on the strength of Act and Rules, cannot be left at the whims and fancies of the State to interfere, through executive orders, without adhering to the principles of consistency and predictability, which are warranted by the rule of law and are pillars of non-arbitrariness."
8.8 Noticeably, the respondents' case is premised on the assertion that a substantial number of candidates do not fulfil ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 31 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV the so-called "qualitative requirements" or "appropriate level"
criteria, as argued by the learned Standing Counsel.
8.8.1 The concept of "qualitative requirements" is wholly alien to both the Recruitment Rules as well as the advertisement, and has been introduced only post-selection. Such post facto introduction and application of eligibility criteria is impermissible in law, as is evident from the sequence of events set out in the record:
(i) The First Academic Evaluation was conducted on 18.07.2023, after which the Academic Evaluation Committee (AEC) met in view of certain complaints received from non-
selected candidates regarding non-consideration of their candidature and qualifications, etc.
(ii) The Second AEC met on 29.12.2023 and, for the first time, deliberated upon the issue of "qualitative requirements."
(iii) Thereafter, the interviews were conducted in January 2024.
(iv) The list of provisionally selected candidates, final in all respects, was duly issued by the respondents in March 2024.
(v) Subsequently, a Third AEC was constituted in October 2024, which met in November 2024 and introduced a new criteria, including the so-called "qualitative requirement." This ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 32 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV clearly amounts to a post facto modification of the selection parameters after completion of the selection process, thereby altering the "rules of the game midway," which is arbitrary, impermissible, and unsustainable in law, as held by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (2025) 2 SCC 1.
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.
8.8.3 Being 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.
8.8.4 The 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.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 33 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV 8.8.5 It 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.
8.8.6 The 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.
8.8.7 The 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, ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 34 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV which is impermissible in law, as held in K. Manjusree v.
State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512.
8.8.9 The 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.
8.10 The norms for the posts of Scientist 'C' and Scientist 'D' were already clearly notified in the recruitment advertisement as under:-
"Norms for the post of Scientist -C S. Max Particulars Weightage of Marks No. Marks Matriculation (Class 10
(a) 0.1 mark for each percent X) marks 20
(b) 10+2 (Intermediate) 0.2 mark for each percent marks 5
(c) GATE Score 0.05 mark for each percent marks Essential 0.4 mark for each percent in Qualification (basic 40
(d) the degree of essential qualification required marks qualification for the post) Ph.D. in relevant Full marks for awarded 10
(e) field Ph.D. degree marks ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 35 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV S. Max Particulars Weightage of Marks No. Marks 4.5 marks for each completed year in Government/Semi-
Government in relevant field
Experience in at an appropriate level after
Relevant field completion of essential
(maximum 4 years in qualification; 18
(f)
Govt./Semi- marks
Govt./Private would 3 marks for each completed be considered) year in private organization in relevant field at an appropriate level after completion of essential qualification 2 marks per paper in International Journal and 1 mark per paper in National Journal having Impact Factor of at least one and indexed in any of the following:
(i) Web of Science (SCI 12
(g) Journal Publications
(Science Citation Index), marks
SSCI (Social Sciences
Citation Index), SCI-
Expanded (Science Citation
Index Expanded)
or
(ii)SCOPUS
1 mark for each conference
paper presented and
Conference 5
(h) published in
Publications marks
SCOPUS/IEEE/Springer
indexed proceedings
Interview/Personal 30
(i) --
Interaction marks
150
Total
marks
Norms for the post of Scientist -D ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 36 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV S. Max Particulars Weightage of Marks No. Marks Matriculation (Class 8
(a) 0.08 mark for each percent X) marks 12
(b) 10+2 (Intermediate) 0.12 mark for each percent marks 5
(c) GATE Score 0.05 mark for each percent marks Essential 0.4 mark for each percent in Qualification (basic 40
(d) the degree of essential qualification required marks qualification for the post) Ph.D. in relevant Full marks for awarded 10
(e) field Ph.D. degree marks 3 marks for each completed year in Government/Semi-
Government in relevant field at an appropriate level after Experience in completion of essential Relevant field qualification;
(maximum 8 years in 24 (f) Govt./Semi- marks 2 marks for each completed Govt./Private would year in private organization be considered) in relevant field at an appropriate level after completion of essential qualification 2 marks per paper in International Journal and 1 mark per paper in National Journal having Impact Factor of at least one and indexed in any of the following: (i) Web of Science (SCI 14 (g) Journal Publications (Science Citation Index), marks SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index), SCI- Expanded (Science Citation Index Expanded) or (ii)SCOPUS (h) Conference 1 mark for each conference 7 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05. SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 37 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV S. Max Particulars Weightage of Marks No. Marks Publications paper presented and marks published in SCOPUS/IEEE/Springer indexed proceedings Interview/Personal 30 (i) -- Interaction marks 150 Total marks
8.11 The contentious issue in the present cases pertains to clause (f) of the norms, which prescribes the requirement of experience, the corresponding weightage of marks, and the maximum marks admissible under the selection scheme. The experience in the relevant field, up to 4 years in Government/Semi-Government or Private sector, is considered in consonance with the Recruitment Rules. In terms of Rule 3(b) of the Recruitment Rules, the experience requirement is stipulated as follows:
"(b) Experience:
S. Name of Minimum Relevant Experience Required No. Post Four years in Research or Development in Scientist 1 Industrial and Academic Institutions or Science 'B' and Technology Organisations or in both Eight years in Research or Development in Scientist 2 Industrial and Academic Institutions or Science 'C' and Technology Organisations or in both Twelve years in Research or Development in Scientist 3 Industrial and Academic Institutions or Science 'D' and Technology Organisations or in both Scientist Eighteen years in Research or Development in 4 'E' Industrial and Academic Institutions or Science ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 38 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV S. Name of Minimum Relevant Experience Required No. Post and Technology Organisations or in both
(i) Eighteen years in Research or Development in Industrial and Academic Institutions or Science and Technology Organisations or in both Scientist (ii) Five years' experience of evolving, 5 'F' managing and directing major programmes under any branch of Science
(iii) Published research work of high standard 8.12 The relevant experience must align with the essential educational qualification, as stated in Clause 3(a):
"Essential:
(a) Educational Qualifications: Bachelor Degree in Engineering or Bachelor Degree in Technology or Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses B-level or Associate Member of Institute of Engineers or Graduate Institute of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers or Master Degree in Science (MSc) or Master in Computer Application or Masters Degree in Engineering or Technology (ME or M-Tech) or Masters Degree in Philosophy (MPhil) in the field as mentioned below:-
Field (single or in combination):
Physics, Applied Physics, Electronics, Electronics and Communication, Radio Physics and Electronics, Chemistry. Applied Chemistry, Materials Science, Environmental Science, Computer Sciences, Communication, Computer and Networking Security, Computer Application, Software System, Information Technology, Information Technology Information Systems (GIS), Geography, Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, Operations Research, Total Quality Management, Informatics, Computer Management, Cyber Law, Bio-informatics, Remote Sensing, ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 39 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV Geographical Management, Statistics, Computational Linguistics, Information Science, electrical, mechanical, Civil, Production, Industrial Electronics, Instrumentation, Electronics and Instrumentation, Power Electronics, Design."
8.13 The selection process was stipulated to be conducted in a three-stage manner, namely: (i) Screening Test, (ii) Evaluation of Academic Records, and (iii) Personal Interaction/Interview.
"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 (le. 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 menit 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.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 40 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV Final Selection of candidates for appointment to the above-mentioned positions will be based on meeting the prescribed eligibility criteria, the performance in the screening test, if applicable and in interview." 8.14 The provisional selection list was stated to be under review on the basis of various complaints and representations received from certain aspirants for the posts.
8.15 In Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 26860-26863 of 2023, Pawan Kumar Tiwary and Others v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) and Others, decided on 19.08.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"32. The High Court failed to apply the test of individual scrutiny, which is now a bedrock requirement in service jurisprudence. When appointments of large numbers of persons are questioned, courts and authorities must:
(i) Separate the legally sustainable from the unsustainable
(ii) Apply the test of eligibility and sanctioned strength
(iii) Assess whether there was fraud or misrepresentation
(iv) Provide an opportunity of hearing before cancellation
33. The action of the Board in cancelling the appellants' appointments en masse without affording them an opportunity of hearing and without considering the legality of each appointment separately reflects not only a violation of principles of natural justice but also abdication of the duty to make reasoned, individualized decisions.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 41 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV
34. As discussed hereinabove, facts upon being evaluated in their entirety, reveal that the appellants were appointed against sanctioned vacancies, pursuant to an internal selection process, and were fully eligible for the posts in question. There is neither any suggestion nor proof of fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation on their part. At best, the process suffers from procedural lapses not attributable to the appointees. Such infirmities, however, render the appointments irregular, not illegal.
35. It must be underscored that the jurisprudential divide between irregular and illegal appointments is neither artificial nor academic. An appointment may be irregular if it deviates from established procedure, but it crosses into the realm of illegality only where it violates statutory mandates, is made without the existence of a sanctioned post, or is tainted by fraud. Conflating the two categories leads to manifest injustice, particularly when individuals, who have no role in the procedural defect, are visited with the severest consequence of termination.
36. There is also an urgent need to discourage the mechanical application of cancellation orders affecting large groups of appointees without differentiation. Service jurisprudence in India must evolve to reflect a nuanced, fact-specific approach that separates the legally sustainable appointments from those that are vitiated. It is neither just nor desirable to extinguish the careers of deserving employees merely for administrative convenience or to avoid the labour of segregation. A practice of indiscriminately declaring entire batches of appointments as void undermines not only the morale of sincere employees but also the credibility of the public administration. This Court deems it necessary to underscore that in all future cases of large-scale appointment irregularities, authorities and courts must mandatorily consider the possibility of segregation and apply the doctrine of severability before taking the extreme step of cancellation.
37. Courts, therefore, must exercise heightened care and adopt a calibrated approach, especially in matters involving mass appointments. The doctrine of severability must not be relegated to a post-facto exercise; it ought to inform the judicial inquiry from the threshold. Early-stage discernment of whether ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 42 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV appointments can be segregated based on sanctioned strength, eligibility, and absence of wrongdoing, enables the court to preserve what is lawful while excising only what is vitiated. Such an approach aligns with constitutional morality, protects institutional credibility, and ensures that administrative missteps do not culminate in judicial overcorrection.
38. In the present case, each appellant: (i) fulfilled the eligibility conditions; (ii) was appointed through a transparent internal selection process; (iii)was within the sanctioned cadre strength; (iv) was not found guilty of any misconduct or fraud. To uphold the Division Bench's order would be to punish the innocent for faults not attributable to them. This would be a miscarriage of justice.
39. The present case, resting as it does on demonstrably sanctioned posts and unblemished individual merit, deserves protection under these principles. Accordingly, we have intervened and the impugned orders passed by the Division Bench and confirmed in review are set aside to the extent they relate to the appellants herein. The appointments of the appellants vide Office Orders dated 24.04.2009 are declared to be legal and valid.
40. Before concluding, we are constrained to clarify that the observations made in the present case, particularly our invocation of the doctrine of severability and the imperative of individualized scrutiny, must not be construed as laying down an inflexible rule of universal application. We are fully cognizant of the cautionary principles articulated by this Court in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others(2025) SCC OnLine SC 719 , wherein, after an exhaustive analysis of precedent and the evidentiary record, this Court observed:
"19. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion:
• When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities, such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness and equity.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 43 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV • The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a fair and thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material collected to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of evidence should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise. The probability test is applicable. • Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates, when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is proven, due weightage has to be given to maintaining the purity of the selection process.
• Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases for practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale."
41. The Baishakhi principle rightly recognizes that where the recruitment process is irredeemably marred by pervasive fraud or institutional malaise, the Court may be compelled albeit reluctantly to nullify the entire selection process in the larger interest of constitutional integrity. In such cases, exception to the principle of natural justice would not lead to potential injustice to untainted candidates and the necessity of maintaining public confidence in institutional processes ought to take precedence.
42. However, the case at hand stands on a demonstrably different factual and legal footing. There is neither any allegation nor proof of fraud, impersonation, or collusion by the appellants. The internal recruitment process in question, albeit allegedly irregular in procedural respects, was conducted through a structured examination and selection mechanism pursuant to duly sanctioned vacancies. The selection was made by a competent authority, and the appointments were not impugned on grounds of mala fides, corruption, or extraneous considerations.
43. It is precisely this material distinction that warrants a calibrated approach. To mechanically apply the drastic remedy of en masse cancellation in such a scenario where the appointments are otherwise regular, fall within the sanctioned strength, and are untainted by illegality, would be to conflate irregularity with illegality, and to punish the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 44 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV innocent for administrative lapses they neither caused nor participated in. The doctrine of severability is not only available but must be invoked to uphold the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16.
44. Thus, while we draw guidance from the Baishakhi judgment as to the outer limits of judicial tolerance in the face of systemic corruption, we hold that in the absence of demonstrable malaise and where individual appointments are legally sustainable, we must lean in favour of preservation, not obliteration."
8.16 It is relevant to note that the stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit, providing a partial justification for cancellation of the recruitment process, appears to be inconsistent with their communication dated 09.01.2026 issued in response to the Right to Information application dated 12.12.2025. The said RTI response specifically states as follows:
S. RTI Query Response No. As per the marks provided by the Academic Evaluation Please specify whether each Committee constituted by of the selected 141 NIC/MeitY, all selected 1 candidates fulfilled the candidates satisfy the minimum relevant requirements mentioned in experience?
the detailed Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2.
Please specify whether each As per the marks provided by of the selected 141 the Academic Evaluation candidates fulfilled the Committee constituted by required experience criteria NIC/MeitY, all selected 2 mentioned in the candidates satisfy the Recruitment Rules, after requirements mentioned in acquiring the essential the detailed Advertisement qualification. No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2. Please specify whether all As per the marks provided by 3 the selected 141 candidates the Academic Evaluation ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 45 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV S. RTI Query Response No. satisfied with essential Committee constituted by qualifications as per the NIC/MeitY, all selected advertisement candidates satisfy the NIELIT/NIC/2022/2. requirements mentioned in the detailed Advertisement No. NIELIT/NIC/2022/2.
Academic evaluation was Please specify whether carried out by Academic official or expert team from Evaluation Committee NIC organisation have constituted by NIC/MeitY 4 involved at the stage of consisting of high-level senior AEC, short listing for staff/experts from technical interview. as well as administrative fields from NIC.
The entire recruitment Please specify whether NIC activities were conducted as has given approval for each per the detailed stage of written exam Advertisement No. 5 results, document NIELIT/NIC/2022/2 verification and till the final approved by NIC/MeitY, with results published. the approval of competent authority.
8.17 Following were the observations of Academic Evaluation Committee (AEC in minutes of the meeting of the) dated 22.11.2024:
"1. As per the recruitment advertisement, candidates must fulfil the eligibility criteria i.e., possess the prescribed educational qualification and should have relevant experience after acquisition of essential qualification to be eligible for the applied post(s) of Scientist-C and Scientist-D. The post of Scientist-D is in pay level 12 (Rs. 78800-209200) for which 08 years of relevant experience has been prescribed and the post of Scientist-C is in the pay level 11 (Rs. 67700-208700) for which 04 years of relevant experience has been prescribed in the advertisement.
2. The norms for evaluation of academic records of the candidates who have cleared the screening test are prescribed in the recruitment advertisement.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 46 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV Parameters for evaluation includes weightage of marks for experience in relevant field at an appropriate level, after completion of essential qualification. As appropriate level for experience is not specified in the recruitment advertisement and in the other relevant documents such as recruitment rules and recruitment guidelines of MeitY, ABC deliberated on this matter at length. As the post(s) of Scientist-D and Scientist-C are middle level posts in NIC, AEC is of the view that the candidates to be considered eligible for these posts should have gained experience in area(s)which are relevant to the advertised post and at an appropriate level which justifies the candidate's selection to these posts Accordingly, the following criteria is rocoramended for consideration of relevant experience at appropriate level:
a. The experience in relevant area at the pay level 7 (Gazetted) and above under CDA (Central DA) pattern in Government and its equivalent level under IDA (Industrial DA) in Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and Banks i.e., at the level of Assistant Manager (Scale-1/E-I Grade) and above or its equivalent may be considered for the post of Scientist-C. b. The experience in relevant area at pay level 10 (Gazetted) and above under CDA (Central DA) pattern in Government and its equivalent level under IDA (Industrial DA) in PSUs and Banks i.e., at the level of Manager (Scale-III/E-3 Grade) and above or its equivalent may be considered for the post of Scientist-D. c. As uniformity in the nomenclature of posts is not found to be followed by private organisations, the criteria for evaluation of experience of relevant area of appropriate level in the private organisations may be advised to the AEC or alternately the AEC may be allowed to decide it on case-to-case basis."
8.18 From what we can discern, the Academic Evaluation Committee (AEC), upon examining the dossiers and other relevant documents furnished by the Personnel Division of NIC, proceeded to recommend certain experience benchmarks ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 47 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV which were not expressly stipulated either in the Recruitment Rules or in the original advertisement. In particular, it suggested that for the post of Scientist-C, experience in the relevant field at Pay Level-7 (Gazetted) or above may be considered, and for Scientist-D, experience at Pay Level-10 or above may be taken as a guiding parameter.
8.19 It cannot be disputed that the AEC, being a body of domain experts, was competent to make recommendations in aid of the evaluation process. However, while such expert inputs may assist in assessing suitability, candidates are primarily required to satisfy the eligibility criteria as expressly prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. The assessment of "relevant experience" cannot be rigidly confined to financial or pay-level classifications such as Pay Level-7 or Pay Level-10, which by themselves cannot constitute the sole or decisive yardstick for determining suitability of a candidate.
8.20 The 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 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 48 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV candidates into those marked in green (approximately one-
third, 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.
8.21 In the words ofV. A. Sukhomlinsky, Ukrainian humanistic educator, "It is not possible to find a substitute as good as a good father." This statement suggests that we are currently trying to define an ideal "appropriate level." Canceling the selection process and issuing a new advertisement that clearly delineates the parameters for this level would facilitate the attainment of the desired ideal among applicants for Scientist "C" or "D"
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 49 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV positions. Our senior scientists at NIC were unable to achieve or perceive this. The administrative reflection runs contrary to the economic maxim: resources are limited, but human wants are unlimited. Scarcity fosters creativity; therefore, we must "think globally, act locally."
8.22. To conclude, we must realize, in the words of Aristotle, that "We are wiser when older, but we learn more easily when younger."
9. CONCLUSION :
9.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the present Original Applications are disposed of with the following directions:
(i) 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.
(ii) 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 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 50 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV 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.
(iii)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 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:12:47 ANI +05'30' 51 Item No. 28 O.A. No. 1127/2025 & O.A. No. 1409/2025 Court No. IV 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.
9.2.Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:12:47
ANI +05'30'