A reserve panel becomes inoperative for non-joining vacancies once a fresh panel is available.

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) issued a notification dated 26 April 2014 for direct recruitment to 29 posts of Assistant Director (Grade-III) (Economic Investigation) in the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises.

The petitioner participated in that selection and was placed at Serial No. 9 in the reserve list after 28 candidates were selected.

One selected candidate, Sh. Chetan Kumar Raigar, did not join, creating a vacancy.

The petitioner sought appointment against that vacancy through an RTI application and representation dated 18 February 2016.

Meanwhile, UPSC had issued a second notification for the same post on 27 December 2014. The petitioner did not apply under the second notification.

The second selection process was completed, and a fresh reserve panel of 17 candidates was recommended on 30 December 2015 and forwarded to the concerned authorities in January 2016.

UPSC informed the petitioner that, since the fresh panel had become available, the reserve panel from the first recruitment had ceased to operate under the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 13 June 2000.

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s Original Application No. 3334/2017, holding that the earlier reserve panel was no longer operative because a fresh panel was available.

The petitioner thereafter challenged the Tribunal’s order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 13 June 2000 applied to vacancies caused by the non-joining of a selected candidate, or only to vacancies caused by death or resignation.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to be recommended for appointment from the reserve panel prepared pursuant to the first recruitment notification, notwithstanding the availability of a fresh reserve panel pursuant to the second notification.

Whether the Tribunal’s order suffered from perversity or patent illegality warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the limited scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227, under which a writ court does not function as an appellate court to reappreciate evidence or reassess factual findings unless the findings are perverse or suffer from manifest illegality.

It further applied paragraph 2 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 13 June 2000, issued following consultation with the UPSC, which permits a request for nomination from a reserve list where a vacancy is caused by non-joining within the stipulated joining period, or by resignation or death within one year of joining, only if a fresh panel is not available by then; such vacancy is not treated as a fresh vacancy.

Consequently, where a fresh panel is available, nomination cannot be made from the earlier reserve panel.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the Office Memorandum was confined to vacancies caused by death or resignation. Its text expressly included vacancies arising from the non-joining of a selected candidate.

Although the vacancy arose from the non-joining of a candidate selected under the first notification, the second recruitment process had already been completed and a fresh reserve panel had been recommended before the petitioner’s representation was made in February 2016.

The condition in the Office Memorandum—namely, that nomination from the reserve list may be sought only where a fresh panel is unavailable—was therefore not satisfied.

The reserve panel from the first recruitment had consequently become non-operative, and the Tribunal’s conclusion was consistent with the applicable policy.

No perversity or patent illegality was shown so as to justify writ interference.

Finding no perversity or patent illegality in the Tribunal’s order, the Court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending applications.