Setback for CGLE 2023 aspirants as CAT backs CAG’s vacancy withdrawal

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, here has dismissed a challenge against the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (CAG) decision to withdraw vacancies for the posts of Assistant Audit Officer (AAO) and Assistant Accounts Officer from the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) 2023.

In its January 22, 2026, order, the Tribunal clarified that the withdrawal was administratively sound and legally valid.

A bench of Manish Garg, Member (Judicial) and Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (Administrative) noted that the CAG officially withdrew the AAO vacancies on November 30, 2023.

Since this occurred before the declaration of the final results on December 4, 2023, it did not violate the established executive guidelines or the notified scheme of the examination.

“In the present case, the withdrawal of AAO vacancies was effected on November 30, 2023, whereas the result of CGLE-2023 was declared on December 04, 2023.

Thus, the withdrawal cannot be said to be post-result or contrary to the governing executive guidelines,” said the Bench. “Moreover, the explanation given by the respondent-CAG reveals that the decision to withdraw vacancies was taken due to compelling administrative constraints, particularly the obligation to accommodate candidates already selected through CGLE-2022 and to comply with the directions of this Tribunal protecting the rights of promotees and absorbees in terms of the Recruitment Rules, 2020, as the Department was legally bound to ensure availability of vacancies for those having a superior statutory claim. Hence, they withdrew the vacancies of CGLE-2023 as the vacancies got consumed,” it said.

The 34 applicants, through advocate Namit Saxena, argued that withdrawal of vacancies without any valid reason, after the entire selection process was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played, which is clearly impermissible by applicable rules governing how the game is supposed to be played.

However, in the order, the Tribunal recognized that the CAG made the decision after “due deliberation and approval” at the highest levels. It emphasised that the department has the prerogative to determine its manpower requirements based on changing administrative needs.

“Perusal of the original record further reveals that the decision to withdraw the vacancies was taken by the respondent-CAG after due deliberation, in conformity with the prescribed administrative procedure, and with the approval of the Competent Authority, it said. Citing settled law from the Supreme Court, the Tribunal reiterated that being shortlisted or selected in an examination does not grant a candidate an “indefeasible right” to be appointed.

“While the State is obliged to act fairly and bona fide, it retains discretion not to fill vacancies for valid reasons. In the present case, the reasons disclosed judicial restraints, cadre management compulsions and non-availability of vacancies, are germane, rational and legally permissible.

The applicants have no vested or indefeasible right to appointment, merely by participation in the examination or by securing higher marks,” observed the Tribunal. The CAT found that the recruitment process, including the transition through Tier-1 and Tier-2 stages, followed the notified scheme and that the government acted within its authority to reduce the number of advertised posts before finalisation.  “On a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the SSC conducted the CGLE-2023 in accordance with the notified scheme, including Tier-1 and Tier-2 examinations.

In Section 3.1 of the Advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that the vacancies are tentative and any change/update in the number of vacancies will be intimated through the website of the Commission. The applicants participated in the selection process with full knowledge of this fact,” it held.

The CGLE is held in two stages, viz. Tier-1 and Tier-2. Tier-1 is compulsory and qualifying in nature. The marks scored in Tier-2 are considered for final selection for the vacancies announced through the Examination.

“Equally, the plea of violation of Articles 14 and 16 also fails, as the withdrawal applied uniformly to all AAO vacancies and was not targeted against any particular individual or class of candidates, when the ultimate decision is driven by cadre-specific administrative necessity,” the Tribunal held and added that “Mere hardship caused to candidates, howsoever unfortunate, cannot substitute proof of arbitrariness or illegality.”

“In view of the foregoing analysis and considering the facts in their entirety, we find no infirmity in the decision taken by the respondents as no discrimination, arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory rules has been established.

The decision of withdrawal of AAO vacancies was taken due to genuine and compelling administrative constraints, including compliance with judicial orders and statutory recruitment priorities. Consequently, we cannot compel the respondents to fill up the withdrawn vacancies or to proceed with appointments contrary to statutory rules and administrative feasibility,” the Bench said.

Saxena said the legal team is examining the order and is considering to file an appeal before the Delhi High Court.