Authorities cannot selectively operate reserve panels; available vacancies require fair, merit-based consideration of candidates.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) issued an advertisement dated 29.07.2013 for 1,979 Primary Teacher posts, including 535 OBC vacancies. The applicant, an OBC candidate, appeared in the examination and, although excluded from the main panel declared on 25.08.2014, was placed at Serial No. 135 in the OBC Reserve Panel.

KVS operated the Reserve Panel first on 26.02.2015 and again on 11.04.2016 to address non-joining and dropout vacancies. After the second exercise, 12 OBC vacancies allegedly remained unfilled.

In an RTI reply dated 14.03.2017, KVS informed the applicant that he stood at Serial No. 11 against the 12 remaining OBC vacancies. However, by communication dated 25.04.2017, KVS stated that the remaining vacancies would be filled from the 2017 recruitment panel.

During March/April 2017, KVS nevertheless issued appointment offers to candidates at Serial Nos. 125 to 131 from the same Reserve Panel, describing the appointments as against backlog vacancies.

The applicant challenged the selective non-operation of the Reserve Panel under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether mere inclusion of the applicant’s name in the Reserve Panel conferred an enforceable right to appointment?

2. Whether the Reserve Panel remained operative between the second waiting-list exercise dated 11.04.2016 and its alleged expiry on 05.06.2016, and whether the respondents could thereafter selectively appoint candidates from the same panel?

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration, or appointment-related relief, against the 12 unfilled OBC vacancies?

The Tribunal applied Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, requiring the State and its instrumentalities to act fairly, consistently, non-arbitrarily and in accordance with comparative merit.

It recognised the settled rule in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, that inclusion in a select or reserve list does not ordinarily create an indefeasible right to appointment, but that if vacancies are filled, the State must respect comparative merit and cannot discriminate.

It also relied on Manoj Manu v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6707/2013, decided on 12.08.2013, and Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway, (2019) 12 SCC 798, for the principle that a replacement or reserve panel cannot be arbitrarily disregarded where vacancies arise through non-joining and suitable candidates are available.

The Tribunal distinguished Union of India v. Subit Kumar Das, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2243, where the wait-listed candidate had no surviving claim after all selected candidates joined and subsequent vacancies were fresh vacancies.

The respondents’ asserted rule that the panel was ordinarily valid for one year and could continue up to one year and six months, or until preparation of a fresh panel, whichever was earlier, was also considered.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s case was not based merely on his placement in the Reserve Panel. The material facts were that OBC vacancies remained unfilled, the respondents had operated the panel twice, and the applicant had been identified as Serial No. 11 against the remaining 12 vacancies.

Even on the respondents’ own case, the panel remained valid until 05.06.2016, whereas the second waiting list was issued on 11.04.2016, leaving sufficient time to consider the applicant.

The respondents’ subsequent issuance of appointment offers in March/April 2017 to candidates placed at Serial Nos. 125 to 131 from the same Reserve Panel undermined their plea that the panel had expired and demonstrated inconsistent and selective treatment.

Describing those appointments as being against backlog vacancies did not satisfactorily justify bypassing the applicant, particularly because no backlog vacancies had been notified in the original advertisement.

Accordingly, although the applicant did not possess an automatic or indefeasible right to appointment, he possessed a right to fair and non-discriminatory consideration in accordance with his merit position and the respondents’ own conduct.

The respondents’ action, insofar as it denied the applicant consideration against the available OBC vacancies solely on the ground of expiry of the Reserve Panel, was set aside.

KVS was directed to consider the applicant strictly according to his position in the Reserve Panel and comparative merit, subject to fulfilment of all eligibility, medical and other appointment requirements.

The benefit of the decision was confined to the applicant, no back wages were granted, and notional benefits from the date of deemed appointment were directed to be considered for fixation of pay and seniority.

The exercise was to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of the certified order, with no order as to costs.