State's failure to accurately calculate vacancies requires Review Selection Committee to protect seniority-based promotion rights.

The applicant, a direct recruit of the Haryana Forest Service (HFS) since 2002, sought induction into the Indian Forest Service (IFS) under the promotion quota

A Selection Committee meeting was convened on 31.12.2018 to fill vacancies for the years 2008 to 2015

For the year 2015, the respondents determined only three vacancies

The applicant contended that a fourth vacancy existed due to the retirement of Sh. O.P. Sharma on 31.07.2015, which was erroneously ignored by the State Government

While the applicant was within the zone of consideration, he was not recommended because the Selection Committee only considered three slots

The applicant’s representation for re-determination of vacancies was rejected via order dated 24.12.2020, on the grounds that a notified select list had attained finality

1. Whether the respondents erred in determining only three vacancies for the year 2015 instead of four by excluding the vacancy arising from retirement

2. Whether an approved and notified Select List can be reviewed or disturbed to correct a calculation error in vacancies

Regulation 5(1) of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, which governs the determination of vacancies and eligibility for induction into the IFS

The principle established in Praveen Kumar v. State of Haryana regarding the treatment of vacancies arising from retirements within the same recruitment year

The administrative principle cited by the UPSC that a notified select list typically attains finality and unfilled vacancies should be carried forward

The Tribunal found that the State of Haryana (Respondent No. 3) had admitted to a miscalculation, having forwarded communications to the Union of India (Respondent No. 1) suggesting the vacancies be increased from three to four per the 1966 Regulations

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant should not be penalized for an administrative error committed by the state authorities in reporting the correct number of vacancies existing prior to the Selection Committee meeting

The Tribunal determined that the denial of a promotion opportunity due to an objective factual error in vacancy determination was unjust

The "finality" of the list could not override the applicant's right to be considered against a vacancy that legally existed at the material time

The Tribunal held that the applicant cannot suffer for the respondents' error and directed the UPSC to hold a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the year 2015 specifically for the 4th vacancy

If found fit, the applicant is to be appointed to the IFS with all consequential and admissible benefits

The respondents were ordered to complete this process within eight weeks