Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Madan Kumar vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 23 February, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 4300/2018
Orders reserved on: 29.01.2026
Orders pronounced on: 23.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Madan Kumar, aged 40 years, (Appointment), 'C'
S/o Shri Munshwar Prasad,
r/o House No. 41, Flat No. 08,
Mohammadpur, R. K. Puram,
New Delhi. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. All India Institute of Medical Science,
Through its' Director,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029
2. Deputy Director (Admn.),
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029
3. Shri Gopal Sah (Roll No. 14133)
Ophthalmic Technician Gr.-I
Through the Deputy Director (Admn.),
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain with Mr. Kautilya Birat)
2026.02.24
RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30'
Item No. 49/C-4 2 OA No. 4300/2018
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 25.7.2018 (Annxe.A/1), declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents not considering and not appointing the applicant to the post of Ophthalmic Technician Gr.-I and appointed the person who got lesser marks than the applicant is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to appoint the applicant to the post of Ophthalmic Technician Gr.-I from the date of appointment of similarly situated and junior persons of the same selection with all consequential benefits.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to create one supernumerary post of Ophthalmic Technician Gr.-I to adjust the respondent No. 3/applicant/any other candidate who secured lesser marks than the applicant.
(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. As stated by the applicant, he participated in the selection process for the post of Ophthalmic Technician Grade-I in AIIMS. The selection was to be done through written examination and interview. The grievance of the applicant is that despite he having more marks in the written examination than the selected candidate, namely, Gopal Sah (respondent No. 3), he was not called for interview on the ground that he was over-aged. It is stated that the applicant had clearly indicated that he is working as Ophthalmic Technician in AIIMS on contract basis since 2005 and had made a mention to this effect in his format of application, but the respondents did not grant the benefits of age 2026.02.24 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30' Item No. 49/C-4 3 OA No. 4300/2018 relaxation and consequently, declined to call him for interview. Hence, this O.A.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that:-
(i) The candidate who secured lesser marks has been appointed, by ignoring the applicant, which is not only illegal and arbitrary but also violates Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India.
(ii) The respondents first time uploaded result with individuals marks secured by all candidates on Institute's web site on 09.07.2016 from which the applicant came to know that he has secured 41 marks in the written Test, whereas, the last candidates under OBC category namely Shri Gopal Sah (Respondent No. 3) secured 40 marks in the interview. It is submitted that Shri Gopal Sah is also working in AIIMS on temporary basis and is not a regular employee like the applicant and he has also applied as a department candidate and he has been granted age relaxation as a departmental candidate as well as OBC candidate and he has been appointed after calling in the interview, whereas, the applicant has been ignored without any reason and justification.
(iii) In the impugned order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure-A/1) the respondents admitted that the person who secured lesser marks and similarly situated has been appointed and the applicant has not been appointed only for the reasons that he had failed to tick the box of 2026.02.24 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30' Item No. 49/C-4 4 OA No. 4300/2018 Govt. Employee in the application form, which is totally wrong statement given by the respondents, whereas, the applicant got the copy of his form under RTI in which in col. 12, the applicant clearly mentioned all the details regarding his employment. It is submitted that the applicant was not the regular employee (he was a contract employee) and therefore, the applicant correctly not mentioned so in the box specified to provide such information of Govt. employee, whereas, Shri Gopal Sah, wrongly ticked the box of Govt. employee, whereas, he was not the Govt. employee and was working like the applicant on contract basis on projection. It is submitted that the person who had submitted wrong information has been appointed and the person/applicant who has given correct information has been denied for his applicant which is totally illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in the eyes of law.
(iv) It is settled principle of law that consideration for appointment in fair manner is fundamental right of a candidate and in present case, the respondents totally in arbitrary and discriminatory manner not shortlisted the applicant for appointment and shortlisted the person who got lesser marks than the applicant and he has been appointed also, which is violates Art. 14 and 16 of the constitution of India.
(v) The applicant is working since 2005 against the regular posts and therefore, there is no reasons and justification for not treating the applicant as a departmental candidate, otherwise also, the applicant entitled for age relaxation for the period since when the applicant is working on temporary basis in the department.
2026.02.24 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30' Item No. 49/C-4 5 OA No. 4300/2018
(vi) The respondent vide information under RTI Act, dt. 03.10.2016 (Annexure-A/7) informed the applicant that the applicant was not called for interview due to overage which is totally wrong as Shri Gopal Sah is also working in AIIMS on temporary basis and was not a regular employee of AIIMS like the applicant and he had also applied as a department candidate like the applicant and he has been granted age relaxation as a departmental candidate as well as OBC candidate and he has been appointed after calling in the interview, whereas, the applicant has been ignored without any reason and justification, which is totally illegal and discriminatory in the eyes of law.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel, by referring to the contents of the counter reply filed on 02.03.2020 on behalf of respondents, submitted that the applications received for these posts of Ophthalmic Technician Grade-I was screened by the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee had taken into account the necessary particulars and recommended him to be called for written/interview along with other eligible candidates. The applicant was called for Written Examination for the post of Ophthalmic Technician Grade - which was held on 12.01.2014 and he also appeared for the written test along with other candidates. The result of the written test was declared by the Examination Section on 22.01.2014 and a total of 54 shortlisted candidates were interviewed on 05.02.2014. He was not called for the interview by the Examination section, as they found him ineligible being overage.
2026.02.24
RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30'
Item No. 49/C-4 6 OA No. 4300/2018
5.1 Learned counsel argued that the Examination Section relied on the
entries in the application form, where the applicant did not tick the box from Government Employee and thus, rightly concluded that he was not eligible being over-age. The Examination Section, thereafter, declared the result and published list of 10 selected candidates for the post of Ophthalmic Technician Grade-I on 07.05.2014 (Annexure-A/4) based on the result of written test/interview. It is further submitted that out of the selected candidates, namely Shri Gopal Sah, who though belongs to the OBC category was selected against the Un-reserved post. He was given expected age relaxation as he had ticked in the box of the Government employee and thus, was considered for age relaxation. Recruitment cell had at no point of that time informed that the applicant was considered as a Departmental Candidates for stage 2-interview despite Screening Committee having short listed him and his name being called for the written exam based on the same. It was only after, AIIMS Examination Section uploaded result with the individuals marks scored by all candidates on Institutes website on 09.07.2016 that applicant came to know about his score which was more than that of Shri Gopal Sah. Shri Madan Kumar had got 41 marks in written test whereas Gopal Sah had got 40 marks. After knowing his marks and of other candidates, Shri Madan Kumar had requested for proper enquiry and requested for allowing him to join to the post of Ophthalmic Technician Grade-l. The case of Shri Madan Kumar as provided by the Examination section and statement of Recruitment Cell that Shri Madan Kumar was not called for interview as he did not fill the category as "Government Employee" in his 2026.02.24 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30' Item No. 49/C-4 7 OA No. 4300/2018 application form, hence he was not given any age relaxation in age and Examination section found him overage.
5.2 It is also contended that the applicant secured 1 (0ne) mark more than the respondent No. 3 namely Shri Gopal Sah, he was not considered being overage. He also did not get the age relaxation because he didn't fill up the box indicating he is a 'Government Employee'. Since, it was a lapse in his part, he cannot challenge the decision which was taken on the basis of inputs that he has provided in the application. The applicant was over- aged and moreover, he did not get the age relaxation because he did not fill up or marked tick in the box indicating he is a 'Government Employee' whereas, Shri Gopal Sah filled up the box indicating he is a 'Government Employee'. This was a lapse in the part of the applicant so it will be unjustified to quash the order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure-A/1). Therefore, the O.A. needs to be dismissed out rightly. REBUTTAL TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
6. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicant filed a rejoinder on 14.12.2022 reiterating the averments and submissions as made in the OA. It is submitted that the respondents declared the marks scored by all candidates who have been appointed, the applicant on institution's website only on 09.07.2016 and when the applicant came to know through RTI information that the junior person who got less marks has been appointed, the applicant submitted his representation vide dated 07.09.2016 followed by another representation dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure-A/3) and when no reply received, the applicant sought information under RTI Act, regarding the consideration of his representation and the respondents vide letter dated 11.10.2017 2026.02.24 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30' Item No. 49/C-4 8 OA No. 4300/2018 intimated the applicant that his representation is under consideration for decision of competent authority and now the same has been rejected vide order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure-A/1) on directions of the Tribunal. 6.1 It is also submitted that the respondents first time uploaded result with individuals marks secured by all candidates on Institute's website on 09.07.2016 from which the applicant came to know that he has secured 41 marks even under OBC category namely Shri Gopal Sah (Respondent No. 3) secured 40 marks have been appointed. It is submitted that Shri Gopal Sah is also working in AIIMS on temporary basis and is not a regular employee like the applicant and he also applied as a departmental candidate and he has been granted age relaxation as a departmental candidate as well as OBC candidate and he has been appointed after calling in the interview whereas, the applicant has been ignored without any reason.
6.2 Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the order/judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in following matters, namely, (i) Order/judgment dated 10.02.2025 in O.A. No. 184/2024 in the matter of Sagar Vs. AIIMS & Ors.; and (ii) Order/judgment dated 16.12.2024 in O.A. No. 155/2024 in the matter of Arvind Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
ANALYSIS
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings on record.
2026.02.24
RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30'
Item No. 49/C-4 9 OA No. 4300/2018
8. Having regard to pleadings on record and rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the following issues arise for adjudication in this case:
(i) Whether the action of the respondents in not calling the applicant for interview on the ground of over-age, despite disclosure of his contractual service in AIIMS, is arbitrary and legally unsustainable?
(ii) Whether denial of age relaxation to the applicant while granting similar benefit to Respondent No.3, who was similarly placed and had secured lesser marks, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
(iii) Whether the impugned order dated 25.07.2018 suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed with consequential directions?
9. So far as issue (i), as mentioned in para 8 above, i.e., whether the action of the respondents in not calling the applicant for interview on the ground of over-age, despite disclosure of his contractual service in AIIMS, is arbitrary and legally unsustainable, is concerned, we observe that the undisputed facts reveal that the applicant participated in the recruitment process, appeared in the written examination and secured 41 marks, which is higher than Respondent No.3 who secured 40 marks. The sole ground for not calling the applicant for interview was that he was treated as over-aged since he did not tick the "Government Employee" column. However, the record indicates that the applicant had clearly disclosed his engagement as Ophthalmic Technician in AIIMS 2026.02.24 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30' Item No. 49/C-4 10 OA No. 4300/2018 since 2005 on contractual basis in the application form itself. Once such material information was available, it was incumbent upon the respondents to verify eligibility rather than mechanically relying on a tick-box omission. We are unable to appreciate such pedantic view and turned vision on the part of the respondents.
9.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. DSSSB, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754, held that recruitment authorities must adopt a substantive and fair approach and cannot reject meritorious candidates on technical or procedural lapses when relevant information is otherwise available on record. It is apt to reproduce the relevant paras of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
"67. By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order--Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [(1995) 1 SCC 745] , Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [(1997) 1 SCC 35] , Union of India v. J.V. Subhaiah [(1996) 2 SCC 258 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 558 : (1996) 33 ATC 194] , Gursharan Singh v. NDMC [(1996) 2 SCC 459] , State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [(1997) 3 SCC 321 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 801] , Faridabad CT. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services [(1997) 7 SCC 752] , Style (Dress Land) v. UT, Chandigarh [(1999) 7 SCC 89] , State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh [(2000) 9 SCC 94 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 845] , Union of India v. International Trading Co. [(2003) 5 SCC 437] and Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain [(2007) 4 SCC 737] ."
9.2 Similarly, in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE (2005) 9 SCC 779, it was held that procedural requirements should not defeat substantive rights where eligibility otherwise exists. The relevant para of the said judgment provides as under:-
"7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the 2026.02.24 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30' Item No. 49/C-4 11 OA No. 4300/2018 contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage, etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature."
9.3 Thus, the denial of interview to the applicant purely on a technical ground, despite relevant employment details are very much with the respondents, is arbitrary and unsustainable.
10. So far as issue (ii), as mentioned in para 8 above, i.e., whether denial of age relaxation to the applicant while granting similar benefit to Respondent No.3, who was similarly placed and had secured lesser marks, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is concerned, the material on record shows that Respondent No.3, who was also working on temporary basis and had secured lesser marks than the applicant, was granted age relaxation and appointed after being called for interview. The respondents have failed to establish any intelligible differentia between the applicant and Respondent No.3. 10.1 It is well settled that equals must be treated equally. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1974) 4 SCC 3 and Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248, held that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, in Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, reported in (1975) 4 SCC 714, it was held that when benefits are granted to similarly situated 2026.02.24 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30' Item No. 49/C-4 12 OA No. 4300/2018 persons, denial to another without rational basis amounts to discrimination.
1o.2 Once the respondents granted age relaxation and appointment to a similarly placed candidate with lesser marks, denial of similar consideration to the applicant is clearly discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
11. So far as issue (ii), as mentioned in para 8 above, i.e., whether the impugned order dated 25.07.2018 suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed with consequential directions, we observe that the impugned order dated 25.07.2018 proceeds solely on the premise that the applicant failed to tick the Government employee column and was, therefore, over-aged. The order does not examine the fact that the applicant's long contractual service in AIIMS since 2005; disclosure of employment details in the application form; parity with Respondent No.3; and the applicant's higher merit position. 11.1 Administrative decisions affecting civil rights must be reasoned and demonstrate due application of mind. In Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that recording reasons is an essential component of fairness and transparency. The impugned order, being mechanical and non-speaking, is therefore, legally unsustainable.
12. At this stage, it would be apposite to advert to the contemporaneous record maintained by the respondent department. A perusal of Note Sheet No. F. No. 1-4/2000-Estt. (PF) reveals that the department itself examined the issue of eligibility of the applicant and 2026.02.24 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30' Item No. 49/C-4 13 OA No. 4300/2018 recorded a clear factual position with respect to the recruitment process. The noting, which forms part of the official file and predates the impugned action, assumes significance as it reflects the respondents' own understanding of the applicable Recruitment Rules and the manner in which the applicant's candidature was treated at the relevant point of time. The relevant extract from the said note sheet reads as under:-
"This file deals with recruitment of Ophthalmic Technician Gd.I, wherein we have received many representations from OSD to Hon'ble HFM and Addl. PS to HFM of Shri Madan Kumar regarding his eligibility to the post. The brief of his case is as under:-
An advertisement of 10 vacanct posts [06-UR, 01-SC & 03-OBC] was made in 2012 against which Shri Madan Kumar had applied. He was working in a Research project in AIIMS as Ophthalmic Technician on that time and covered under upper age limit upto 40 years for AIIMS employee as per Recruitment Rules. Hence, considered him eligible candidate with other similar candidates, Recruitment Cell forward his name to the Exam Section for conducting Written Test/Interview with the list of 177 eligible candidates for the post of Ophthalmic Technician Gd. I."
13. A comparative list of the applicant, Madan Kumar, vis-à-vis Respondent No. 3 has been placed on record, which reflects the following particulars:-
Sr. Roll Name Marks Date of Category Govt.
No. No. obtained Birth Employee/Departmental
in Candidate
Written
Exam
1. 14008 Madan 41 12.12.1977 OBC Departmental Candidate
Kumar
2. 14133 Gopal 40 23.12.1976 OBC Departmental Candidate
Sah
13.1 From the aforesaid comparative statement, it is evident that the
applicant secured higher marks than Respondent No. 3 in the written examination, and both belong to the same category and were considered as departmental candidates by the official respondents themselves.
2026.02.24
RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30'
Item No. 49/C-4 14 OA No. 4300/2018
Respondent No. 3 was appointed long back and has been working on the post for several years.
14. In view of above analysis and findings, all the issues are addressed accordingly.
15. In the above peculiar facts and circumstances of this case we further observe that there were only three posts of Ophthalmic Technician Grade-I under the OBC category as advertised by the aforesaid advertisement. Although it is evident from the record that Respondent No.3 secured lesser marks than the applicant, the applicant was not permitted to appear in the interview after being wrongly declared over-aged, as he was not treated as a departmental candidate, unlike Respondent No.3, who was granted such consideration. Otherwise, the applicant would have been appointed against the said post, as is evident from the impugned order dated 25.7.2018 in which the official respondents have themselves mentioned as under:-
"An advertisement of 10 vacant posts [06-UR, 01-5C & 03-OBC] was made in 2012 against which Sh. Madan Kumar had applied through offline mode. He was working in a Research project in AlIMS as Ophthalmic Technician at that time and was thus eligible to be given relaxation in age i.e. 40 years for AIIMS employee as per Recruitment Rules. The applications received for these posts of Ophthalmic Technician Grade-I were screened by the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee had taken into account thus recommended him to be called for written/ Interview along with other eligible candidate's and recommendation of this the same were forwarded to the Exam Section vide 1-4/2000-Estt. Date 26.07. 2013. Further, he was called for written Examination for the post of Ophthalmic Technician Grade-which was held on 12.01.2014 and he also appeared for the written test along with other candidates. The result of written test was declared by Examination Section, AIIMs vide F. No. AlIMS/ Exam Sec/34-27/13/OPH/GD-I/ 2013 dated 22.01.2014 and a total of 54 shortlisted candidates were interviewed on 05.02.2014. He was not called for interview by Exam Section, as they found him ineligible being overage. The Examination Section relied on the entries in the application form, where the applicant had not ticked the box for Govt. Employee and thus concluded that he was not eligible.
2026.02.24
RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30'
Item No. 49/C-4 15 OA No. 4300/2018
AND WHEREAS Exam Section thereafter, declared the result and published list of 10 selected candidates for the post of Ophthalmic Technician Gd.-I on 07.05.2014 based on the result of written test/ interview. All the selected candidates had thereafter joined the posts. Out of selected candidates, one candidate was Sh. Gopal Sah, who though belongs to OBC category was selected against UR post. He was given expected age relaxation as he had ticked in the box in Govt. Employee and thus was considered for age relaxation Recruitment Cell had at no point at that time informed that Shri Madan Kumar was not considered as a Departmental Candidates for stage-2 Interview despite Screening Committee having short listed him and his being called for written exam based on the same.. And the process of filling Post of Ophthalmic Technician Grade-I was completed in year 2014.
It was only after, AIIMS Exam Section uploaded result with individual's marks scored by all candidates on Institute's web site on 09.07.2016 that applicant came to know of his score which was more than that of Sh. Gopal Sah. Sh. Madan Kumar had got 41 marks in written test whereas Sh. Gopal Sah had got 40 marks.
After knowing his marks and of other candidates, Sh. Madan Kumar had requested for proper enquiry and requested for allowing him to join to the post of Ophthalmic Technician Gd-I. Fact of the case of Sh. Madan Kumar as provided by the Examination Section and statement of Recruitment Cell that Sh. Madan Kumar was not called for interview as he did not fill the category as Government Employee' in his application form, hence he was not given any age relaxation in age and Examination Section found him overage.
AND WHEREAS, the DOP&T vide its O.M. No.F.39020/02/2013- Estt.(B)-Part dated 29.12.2015 has discontinued the process of holding interview for recruitments for all Group C and Group 'D' (Which are now reclassified as Group C) post and for non-gazetted posts of Group "B" category and all such equivalent posts.
AND WHEREAS, his request was considered by the Competent Authority and a meeting was called on 03.07.2018. The committee noted that the candidate had failed to tick the box of Govt. Employee in the application form. However, he had submitted documents of working in Research Project, RPC and on the same basis the Screening Committee had screened his name and the same was communicated to the Examination Section. After exam was conducted by the Examination Section, they had then shortlisted candidates to be called for interview on the basis of fresh scrutiny of applications at their own level. Examination Section on (sic) that the candidate has not ticked the box for Govt. Employee, decided to not call him for interview (sic) he was not fulfilling eligibility criteria in terms of age. It is to be mentioned that in this case the selection was based on the score in written exam as well as interview. Though he had scored one mark more than the other candidate Sh. Gopal Sah in written exam, even if he had been called for interview it cannot be said/concluded with surety that he would have scored more and would have had chance of being in the merit to be considered for appointment.
In view of this, it is not possible to consider his request for appointment to the post of Ophthalmic Technician Grade-l at this stage."
2026.02.24 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30' Item No. 49/C-4 16 OA No. 4300/2018
16. The above order was passed by the respondents in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal in OA No.1542/2018 earlier filed by the applicant in which the respondents were directed to consider and decide the representation dated 06.07.2017 of the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order. From the above quoted portion of the impugned order dated 25.7.2018, we find that it is admitted by the respondents that the applicant was working as an Ophthalmic Technician in an AIIMS research project at the relevant time and was, therefore, prima facie eligible for age relaxation as an AIIMS/departmental candidate under the applicable Recruitment Rules. This position stands reinforced by the fact that the Screening Committee, after considering his credentials and documents, found him eligible and recommended him for the written examination, which recommendation was formally forwarded to the Examination Section. Hence, his eligibility had already been recognized at the institutional level. Subsequent declaration of the applicant as disqualified is arbitrary and contrary to earlier Screening Committee's decision.
17. After the applicant successfully cleared the written examination process, the Examination Section undertook a fresh scrutiny and declared him over-aged solely on the ground that he had not ticked the "Government Employee" box. Such action appears arbitrary because the Screening Committee had already verified his status and recommended him as an eligible departmental candidate based on documents. Once eligibility was assessed by the competent Screening Committee, the Examination Section could not disregard that 2026.02.24 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30' Item No. 49/C-4 17 OA No. 4300/2018 determination mechanically. The applicant had disclosed his employment details in the application and also submitted documentary proof of his engagement with AIIMS. Therefore, denial of age relaxation merely for failure to tick a particular box amounts to elevating a procedural formality over substantive eligibility. The Hon'ble Courts have consistently held that selection processes should not be defeated by hyper-technical interpretation where eligibility is otherwise established and known to the employer.
18. It is undisputed that another candidate, Shri Gopal Sah, who secured lesser marks, was granted age relaxation and appointed after being called for interview as he as tick on the column regaring Govt. employee. Both candidates were similarly placed as contractual workers in AIIMS, however, only the applicant was denied relaxation. This differential treatment without rational basis prima facie violates the equality mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
19. The applicant was allowed to appear in the written examination after due scrutiny but was later excluded at the interview stage due to internal inconsistency between the Screening Committee and Examination Section. The applicant cannot be penalized for inter- departmental miscommunication or administrative lapses within the recruiting authority.
20. The contention that the applicant might not have succeeded even if called for interview is legally untenable. Denial of opportunity itself constitutes prejudice, and the applicant was deprived of fair consideration at a crucial stage of selection despite having higher written marks than a selected candidate. The marks were disclosed only 2026.02.24 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30' Item No. 49/C-4 18 OA No. 4300/2018 in 2016, after completion of the process in 2014, thereby depriving the applicant of timely challenge. His prompt representations after learning the facts demonstrate diligence and negate any allegation of acquiescence.
21. In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and in order to ensure that the legitimate rights and service interests of the applicant are duly protected without disturbing the existing sanctioned strength or adversely affecting seniority and promotional prospects of other employees, the respondents are required to take appropriate steps for creation of a supernumerary post of Ophthalmic Technician Grade-I in accordance with applicable Recruitment Rules, Government instructions and financial norms.
22. In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons recorded above, we dispose of this OA with the following directions:-
(i) The impugned order dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside;
(ii) The respondents are directed to create a supernumerary post of Ophthalmic Technician Grade-I and consider the case of the appointment to the said post. The applicant is entitled to seniority from the date his junior is appointed to the said post and his pay be fixed notionally and will be granted actually from the date of joining on the said post and other benefits will flow accordingly.
2026.02.24 RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30' Item No. 49/C-4 19 OA No. 4300/2018
(iii) The said supernumerary post shall be created purely as a personal and temporary measure for accommodating the applicant, and it shall stand automatically abolished upon the occurrence of any of the following events, whichever is earlier, i.e., availability of a regular sanctioned vacancy in the cadre of Ophthalmic Technician Grade-I, if already existing; or promotion, retirement, resignation, or transfer;
(iv) The respondents are directed to comply with above directions as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 08 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
22. There shall be no order as to costs.
23. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/
2026.02.24
RAVI KANOJIA17:17:25+05'30'