Central government

I am seeking legal advice regarding a public employment dispute concerning the arbitrary interpretation of eligibility criteria. I was successfully selected for a government post, but during document verification, the appointing authority placed my candidacy on a "provisional" status. The core issue centers entirely on how the department is treating a "preferable" qualification. The official advertisement listed specific essential qualifications—which I fully meet with my current experience—and separately listed a higher level of experience strictly as "preferably". However, the administration is now unlawfully treating this preferable criterion as a mandatory requirement for final clearance. I have already exhausted internal administrative remedies by filing RTIs, formal representations, and official grievances, and I have compiled Supreme Court precedents that clearly distinguish between essential and preferable conditions. I would like your legal opinion on the viability of challenging this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) or appropriate court to compel the authority to adhere to the advertised criteria and finalize my appointment.