Recruitment suspension orders cannot retrospectively defeat appointment rights accrued under pre-existing reserve list policies.

The Petitioners (Union of India) advertised 93 vacancies for the post of Telecom Mechanic at the 509 Army Base Workshop, Agra.

The Respondent applied under the General Category, successfully cleared the written and practical examinations, and was placed at Sl. No. 1 of the "Reserve List" for General category candidates.

This reserve list was maintained per an Adjutant General’s Branch policy dated 21 May 2007, designed to fill vacancies if a selected candidate failed to join or resigned within one year.

On 1 April 2013, a selected candidate, Mr. Robin Kumar Potlia, expressed his unwillingness to join.

Despite the vacancy, the Petitioners refused to appoint the Respondent, citing a subsequent Army Headquarters direction dated 3 April 2013 which suspended further recruitments due to a cadre restructuring that allegedly rendered 65 workers surplus.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed the Respondent's Original Application (OA 2675/2014), holding the refusal illegal.

The Petitioners challenged the CAT's order before the High Court.

1. Whether a candidate on a reserve list acquires a right to appointment when a vacancy arises specifically due to the non-joining of a selected candidate, in light of internal policy instructions.

2. Whether a subsequent administrative instruction suspending recruitment can retrospectively defeat a right to appointment that accrued prior to the issuance of said instruction.

The Court considered the principle established in Shankarsan Dash v. UOI (1991) 3 SCC 47, which generally holds that a candidate in a reserve list does not have an indefeasible right to appointment.

This is qualified by the specific recruitment policy and instructions (Adjutant General’s letter dated 21 May 2007) which expressly envisaged the filling of vacancies from the reserve list in cases of non-joining.

The Court also referenced Shashi Bhushan v. University of Delhi 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1319 regarding the limits of a candidate's rights during selection.

The Court reasoned that while a waitlisted candidate typically lacks an absolute legal right to appointment, the Petitioners’ own policy (the 2007 Adjutant General’s instructions) created a specific framework for the reserve list to cater to non-joining candidates.

The vacancy occurred on 1 April 2013 when Mr. Potlia declined the offer, whereas the recruitment suspension order was issued only on 3 April 2013.

The Court determined that the Respondent’s right to be considered arose the moment the vacancy occurred under the existing advertisement and policy.

It held that the suspension order dated 3 April 2013 could only operate prospectively and could not be used to retroactively negate the Respondent's right which had already crystallized per the 2007 instructions.

The Court found the Petitioners' failure to produce evidence regarding surplus staff further weakened their justification for departing from their established policy.

The Court held that the Petitioners were bound by their policy to offer the appointment to the Respondent as the first candidate on the reserve list once the vacancy arose.

The Court directed the Petitioners to ensure compliance with the order of appointment within 12 weeks.