Panel expiry cannot defeat appointment where an ineligible candidate unlawfully displaced an eligible candidate.

The petitioner, a Scheduled Tribe candidate, applied for appointment as PGT (History) (Female) with the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, pursuant to a DSSSB advertisement. She cleared the selection process and was placed second in the ST wait list against five vacancies, while five candidates were initially selected in the ST category.

The candidature of Savita Meena, one of the selected candidates, was cancelled on 18 October 2022, within one year of the result notice dated 26 October 2021. The resulting vacancy was offered to Anju Meena, the first candidate in the wait list, thereby making the petitioner the first wait-listed candidate.

Subsequently, on 12 May 2023—after expiry of one year from the result notice—Anju Meena’s candidature was cancelled because she had simultaneously pursued M.A. (History) and B.Ed. degrees from the University of Rajasthan, rendering her ineligible. The petitioner claimed that she ought then to have been appointed.

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed her challenge in OA No. 2110/2023 on 20 December 2024, holding that the panel had expired. The petitioner therefore filed the present writ petition.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment against the vacancy arising from cancellation of Anju Meena’s candidature, notwithstanding that such cancellation occurred after expiry of the one-year life of the panel.

Whether the respondents could rely on expiry of the panel when the petitioner’s exclusion from the effective select/wait list resulted from the prior illegal inclusion of an ineligible candidate.

The Court applied the general rule that a recruitment panel ordinarily has a life of one year and cannot ordinarily be operated after its expiry.

However, relying on the Coordinate Bench decision in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shabana Parveen, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9473, it recognised an exception where an ineligible candidate was unlawfully included in the select or wait list and, on proper scrutiny at the time of preparation of the list, the claimant would have occupied the relevant position. The administration cannot take advantage of its own mistake by invoking expiry of the panel in such circumstances.

The Court found that Anju Meena’s inclusion in the wait list was clearly illegal because she lacked the requisite educational eligibility by simultaneously pursuing two degrees from the same institution.

This disqualification was not a subsequently arising or genuinely latent defect; it could have been detected through even rudimentary scrutiny when the select list was prepared.

Had Anju Meena not been included, the petitioner would have been the first wait-listed ST candidate. Since Savita Meena’s candidature was cancelled within the one-year validity period of the panel, the petitioner would then have entered the select list during the panel’s operative life.

Consequently, the case did not involve impermissible operation of the panel after expiry; rather, the petitioner was denied her rightful position because of the respondents’ original error.

Applying Shabana Parveen, it held that the respondents could not benefit from their failure to exclude an ineligible candidate at the initial stage.

The Tribunal’s order dated 20 December 2024 was set aside, the writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted consequential reliefs.