Reserve list validity must be reckoned from the date of the final recommendation for appointment.

The applicant participated in the 2013 selection process for 85 Public Prosecutor posts in the CBI.

In 2015, 84 candidates were recommended, and a reserve list of 41 candidates was drawn, with the applicant placed at Sl. No. 17 (Sl. No. 5 in the OBC category).

Due to litigation, the recommended and reserve lists were recast on 17.07.2015.

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) contended that the reserve list expired on 16.01.2017, eighteen months from the date of the revised list.

records indicated that the last candidate from the original process was appointed on 16.06.2016.

despite claiming the panel had expired, the UPSC recommended a lower-ranked candidate (Sl. No. 36) on 10.03.2017.

The user department requested fresh dossiers from the reserve panel in June and August 2017 to fill vacancies arising from unwilling candidates, which the UPSC declined, citing the panel's expiration.

1. Whether the validity of the reserve panel should be reckoned from the date of the last appointment/recommendation or the date of the list's initial approval.

2. Whether the UPSC’s refusal to operate the reserve list for the applicant, while simultaneously recommending a lower-ranked candidate after the alleged expiry date, was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16.

3. Whether the applicant has a right to be considered for appointment against remaining vacancies before the reserve panel is deemed exhausted.

Department of Personnel Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 13.06.2000, which stipulates that vacancies arising from non-joining or resignation within one year should be filled from the reserve panel.

Sheo Shyam v. State of U.P., which held that it is equitable to reckon the validity period of a waiting list from the date of the last recommendation rather than the first.

DSSSB v. Rahul Singh Rathore, asserting that a waitlist effectively operates only after the final result is declared.

Manoj Manu v. Union of India, emphasizing that statutory bodies must maintain consistency and cannot adopt a "pick and choose" approach in recruitment.

The Tribunal found the UPSC’s stance inconsistent and contradictory.

While the UPSC argued the panel expired in January 2017, it had actively operated the panel as late as March 2017 to recommend a candidate ranked significantly lower than the applicant.

Applying Sheo Shyam, the Tribunal reasoned that since the last appointment occurred on 16.06.2016, the 18-month validity period should logically extend beyond the date the user department requested fresh names.

The Tribunal noted that the UPSC's decision to bypass the applicant (Sl. No. 17) to recommend Sl. No. 36 constituted an arbitrary exercise of power.

By failing to exhaust higher-ranked candidates in the reserve list before declaring it expired, the respondents violated the applicant's legitimate expectation and constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16.

The Tribunal observed that the recruitment process is only complete after the user department's requirements are met or the panel truly lapses under consistent application of rules.

It held that the reserve panel remained valid and that the applicant's exclusion was arbitrary.

The respondents were directed to operate the panel for the five available OBC vacancies and issue appointment letters to the applicant and four other similarly situated candidates as a one-time measure.

The exercise must be completed within two months.

The applicant was granted consequential benefits on a notional basis, with seniority placed below the last joined candidate from the original list.