Revived vacancies must be filled from existing selection panels regardless of panel expiration or administrative delays.

Respondents 2, 4, 8, and 9 were among 14 candidates selected by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) on September 28, 2021, for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Delhi Jal Board (DJB).

Despite selection, the DJB withheld appointment letters on the grounds that the vacancies had been abolished.

During the pendency of the OA, the DJB revived the posts but made appointments subject to a panel extension or court orders.

On November 25, 2022, the CAT disposed of the OA, directing the DJB to process the appointments within six weeks.

When the DJB failed to comply, the Respondents filed a contempt petition (CP 63/2023), leading to CAT orders on January 29, 2024, and April 25, 2024, directing compliance.

The CP was later erroneously closed by the CAT based on a false statement that the original 2022 judgment was under challenge.

1. Whether the DJB was obligated to issue appointment letters to the selected candidates following the revival of posts and the Tribunal's directions, notwithstanding the expiration of the initial panel.

2. Whether the technicality of "extension of the panel" by the DSSSB could override judicial directions for appointment.

The Court applied the principle of judicial finality and the obligation of state instrumentalities to conclude recruitment processes once vacancies are revived and candidates are found eligible.

It emphasized that directions issued by a Tribunal or Court must be brought to their "logical conclusion".

The court implicitly rejected the doctrine of "expired panels" as a defense against compliance when the delay is attributable to the employer and when specific judicial mandates to appoint exist.

The Court observed that the original judgment of the Tribunal (dated November 25, 2022) directing appointments had never been challenged and thus attained finality.

The Court dismissed the DJB's primary defense—that the recruitment panel's life had not been extended by the DSSSB—ruling that such administrative technicalities cannot obstruct the execution of a court order, especially when the e-dossiers of candidates had already been forwarded.

The Court expressed strong disapproval of the DJB’s conduct, noting that the DJB failed to comply with the directions despite this Court refusing to stay the CAT's orders.

The Court recorded that offers of appointment would be issued to Respondents 2, 4, 8, and 9 within four weeks and consequently, the Court disposed of both writ petitions, effectively upholding the Tribunal's directions for appointment.