The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has upheld the withdrawal of vacancies for the gazetted posts of Assistant Audit Officer (AAO) and Assistant Accounts Officer under the Staff Selection Commission’s Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) 2023, ruling that the decision was taken in accordance with the notified recruitment scheme and applicable executive guidelines.
The Tribunal dismissed a batch of applications filed by candidates who had appeared for CGLE 2023 and challenged the withdrawal of AAO vacancies after completion of the examination process.
The applicants contended that despite clearing Tier-1 and Tier-2 examinations with high cut-offs, no candidate was allotted the post of AAO when results were declared on 4 December 2023, as the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) had withdrawn the vacancies. They argued that the withdrawal was arbitrary, violated the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and amounted to changing the “rules of the game” after the selection process was complete.
Rejecting these submissions, the Tribunal held that the SSC had conducted the CGLE 2023 strictly in line with the notified scheme, which clearly stated that vacancies were tentative and subject to change. The Bench noted that the withdrawal of AAO vacancies was effected on 30 November 2023 prior to the declaration of results on 4 December 2023 and was therefore consistent with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines permitting reconfirmation or withdrawal of vacancies before declaration of results.
The Tribunal further accepted the explanation offered by the CAG that the decision was necessitated by compelling administrative constraints, including the need to accommodate candidates selected through earlier CGLE cycles, comply with judicial orders protecting the rights of promotees and absorbees, and adhere to the Recruitment Rules, 2020, which accord priority to promotion and absorption over direct recruitment.
Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent, including Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, the Tribunal reiterated that mere participation in a selection process or inclusion in a merit list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. It held that while the State must act fairly and bona fide, it retains the discretion not to fill vacancies for valid administrative reasons.
Finding no arbitrariness, discrimination or mala fides in the decision-making process, the Tribunal concluded that the withdrawal of AAO vacancies was taken after due deliberation and approval of the competent authority, and did not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the applications, holding that the candidates could not compel the authorities to proceed with appointments contrary to statutory recruitment priorities and administrative feasibility.
Appearances:
Petitioners were represented by Advocate Namit Saxena, while the respondents were represented by Advocate S.S. Hooda.
