Administrative delay in candidate verification cannot defeat consideration against vacancies arising after a selection panel’s expiry.

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued an advertisement dated 12 May 2021 for recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Hindi) (Male).

The petitioner, an unreserved-category candidate belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), secured 101.52 marks, exceeding the qualifying cut-off of 81.82 marks, and was placed at Serial No. 11 in the EWS select list.

In OA 2473/2022, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the appointing authority to verify the eligibility and experience certificates of selected candidates, thereafter scrutinise candidates from the waiting panel, and, if vacancies remained, consider candidates from the reserve list, with the exercise to be completed within one year of publication of the result.

Owing to non-compliance, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings.

A High Power Committee subsequently found that five selected EWS candidates had submitted certificates after the prescribed cut-off date of 4 July 2021; their candidature was cancelled and five vacancies were restored.

The petitioner claimed appointment against one of these vacancies, asserting that he would become eligible if the panel were operated further.

The Tribunal dismissed his application, holding that the panel had expired on 1 August 2023, that the vacancies arose thereafter, and that the last selected EWS candidate had secured higher marks than the petitioner.

The petitioner accordingly approached the Delhi High Court.

Whether the petitioner could claim appointment against vacancies arising after the expiry of the select/waiting panel, where the delay in identifying those vacancies resulted from the respondents’ failure to comply with the Tribunal’s directions.

Whether the expiry of the panel barred consideration of the petitioner when the vacancies arose because ineligible candidates had been belatedly removed from the select list.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment if EWS vacancies from the concerned selection remained unfilled and he was otherwise suitable.

The Court applied the governing recruitment policy under which a select, waiting, or reserve panel ordinarily remains valid for one year from the declaration of the result and cannot generally be used to fill vacancies arising after its expiry.

It also applied the binding directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal requiring verification of selected candidates and operation of the waiting and reserve panels within the prescribed period, namely before expiry of one year from publication of the result.

The Court relied on the principle that an administrative authority cannot take advantage of its own failure to comply with judicial directions where such failure prejudices a candidate; the expiry of a panel cannot be invoked to defeat a claim that would have been considered had the mandated verification been timely completed.

The Court also noted the petitioner’s reliance on DSSSB v. Sahil Lohchab, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 7118.

Although the petitioner’s marks were lower than those of the last candidate provisionally nominated from the reserve panel, the Court held that the decisive circumstance was not merely comparative merit but the respondents’ failure to complete the verification and appointment exercise within the time directed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal’s direction to complete the process within one year necessarily recognised that the panel would otherwise expire; its purpose was to ensure that eligible candidates from the waiting or reserve panel could be considered before that expiry.

Had DSSSB and the Directorate of Education complied with the directions, the candidature of the five subsequently disqualified EWS candidates would have been examined within the panel’s validity period, and the resulting vacancies would not have emerged only after expiry of the panel.

The Court therefore held that the petitioner could not be prejudiced by the respondents’ delay, miscommunication, or lack of due diligence in verifying the certificates.

The Court directed that, if ten EWS vacancies relating to the selection still remained unfilled, the petitioner’s candidature should be considered against those vacancies; if he was otherwise suitable, he was to be appointed with all consequential benefits, but without back wages.

The petition was disposed of in those terms.