Claim to Appointment via Reserve Panel Not Sustainable in Absence of Specific Enabling Rules

The applicant participated in the 2012 recruitment process for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police

After multiple rounds of litigation by other candidates, the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) revised the results in 2014 and 2015

The applicant, an Unreserved (UR) category candidate, obtained 292.75 marks but was not selected in the final or revised lists

He approached the Tribunal seeking appointment against unfilled vacancies, alleging that the respondents failed to maintain a reserve panel/waiting list as per DoPT OM dated 13.06.2002

He further contended that as of 2018, one vacancy remained due to a cancellation and others due to non-joining, which should have been offered to him instead of being carried forward to subsequent years

1. Whether the respondents were legally mandated to prepare or operate a reserve panel/waiting list in the absence of specific statutory provisions

2. Whether the applicant has an indefeasible right to be appointed against vacancies that were carried forward to subsequent recruitment cycles

Statement identifying a key statute, principle, or precedent: principle that inclusion in a shortlist or the existence of a waiting list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment

Statement on the doctrine derived from a case: Case relied on the doctrine of executive discretion, stating that unless governing rules or statutes mandate a reserve panel, the court cannot compel its creation

vacancies from prior years are legally merged into subsequent recruitment batches once the specific process concludes

The Tribunal reasoned that the preparation of a waiting list is a matter of administrative policy and executive discretion. Since the applicant failed to identify any specific rule or statutory provision necessitating a reserve list for this recruitment, no such right could be claimed as a matter of course.

Regarding the unfilled vacancies, the Tribunal noted that the recruitment for SI (Exe) in Delhi Police is conducted on a year-to-year basis. Following the High Court's reasoning in WP No. 3470/2017, the Tribunal found that unfilled vacancies from the 2012 batch were legally carried forward and adjusted in the 2013-2017 examinations.

Therefore, even if vacancies existed due to resignations or cancellations, they ceased to be "2012 vacancies" once they were integrated into subsequent cycles.

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, holding that the applicant possessed no enforceable right to appointment against carried-forward vacancies or to the creation of a reserve panel. All pending miscellaneous applications were also dismissed with no order as to costs.