UMESH AND ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

2025-04-17 Information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 06.02.2025
Pronounced on: 17.04.2025

+ W.P.(C) 380/2024
UMESH AND ORS. …..Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber & Mr.Anshuman Mehrotra, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS …..Respondents
Through: Ms.Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, SPC with Ms.Vidhi Gupta, Ms.Usha Jamnal, Ms.Harshita Chaturvedi & Ms.Hepsiba Bobin, Advs.
AC Vijender Yadav, SI Pardeep M., SI Parhlad Singh, SI Amit Kumar & ASI Harinder Singh, CISF.

+ W.P.(C) 6898/2024 & CM APPLS. 37158/2024, 65872/2024
SACHIN AND ORS. …..Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber & Mr.Anshuman Mehrotra, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS …..Respondents
Through: Mr.Jagdish Chandra, CGSC with Mr.Shubham Kumar Mishra, Advs. with Mr.Ajay Pal, Law Officer.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
1. These petitions raise a common question of law as to whether the respondents (Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in W.P.(C) 380/2024 and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in W.P.(C) 6898/2024) can be compelled to operate a Reserve List for the selection to the post of Constable/Driver in CISF pursuant to Notice of Recruitment of Constable/Driver and Constable/Driver-Cum-Pump Operator (Driver for Fire Services) in CISF-2022 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Notice No.1) and for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in the Advertisement for Recruitment of ASI (Steno) and Head Constable (Ministerial)-2022 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Notice No.2), respectively.
2. As a common question of law arises in these petitions, they are being considered by this common Judgment.
3. Before considering the question of law raised in these petitions, we shall first consider the facts of each of these petitions in which the question of law arises.
4. As far as W.P.(C) 380/2024 is concerned, the respondents-CISF issued the above-mentioned Recruitment Notice No.1 on 21.01.2023, advertising 451 posts for Constable/Driver and Constable/Driver-Cum-Pump Operator (Driver for Fire Services), which were further increased to 708 posts by a corrigendum notification dated 03.11.2023.
5. Clause 4.3 of the Recruitment Notice No.1 stated that there will be two stages of recruitment before the Detailed Medical Examination, that is, (a) Physical Standard Test (PST)/Physical Endurance Test (PET), Documentation & Trade Test; and (b) OMR Based/Computer Based Test (CBT) mode written examination. It further stated that the list of provisionally selected candidates post-wise and category-wise will thereafter be uploaded on the CISF Recruitment website and the selected candidates would be called for the Detailed Medical Examination (DME).
6. Clause 11.7.1 of the Recruitment Notice No.1 stated that after completion of written examination, category-wise merit list for General, SC, ST, OBC, EWS & ESM will be drawn separately on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in written test by the candidate, and as two options are available for the two posts advertised, that is, Constable/Driver and Constable/DCPO, allotment of posts will be on the basis of merit-cum-preference.
7. Clause 11.7.5 stated that the final result will be published on CISF Recruitment website. Sub-clause (c) of Clause 11.7.5 specifically stated that no waiting list will be kept/maintained.
8. Clause 11.8.1 and Clause 11.8.2 of the Recruitment Notice No.1 stated that candidates equal to the number of vacancies will be called for the DME.
9. The petitioners herein had applied for the post of Constable/Driver and DCPO and appeared in the PET/PST and thereafter for the Trade Test. The petitioners claim that they cleared the said examination and appeared for the written examination. The petitioners, however, were not called for the DME as the respondents, in terms of Clause 11.8.2 of the Recruitment Notice No.1, called only the top 708 candidates clearing Stage-II of the examination for the DME.
10. The petitioners have, therefore, challenged Clause 11.8.2 of the Recruitment Notice No.1. They further pray that the respondents be directed to call twice the number of candidates for the DME and prepare a merit list of selected candidates who have been found medically fit, and in case posts are lying vacant, maintain a reserve list in accordance with the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 13.06.2000 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
11. In support of the above plea, the petitioners contend that out of 708 provisionally selected candidates who were called for the DME, only 566 candidates were deemed medically fit and offer of appointment was issued to only 559 candidates who fulfilled all the eligibility conditions, thereby leaving 149 posts vacant and unfilled. The said figure is available from the short affidavit filed by the respondents in the present petition.
12. As far as W.P.(C) 6898/2024 is concerned, the respondents, CRPF issued the abovementioned Recruitment Notice No.2 on 23.12.2022. As far as relevant to the present petition, a total of 1315 posts of Head Constable (Ministerial) through the process of Direct Recruitment were advertised. This was increased to 1414 posts by way of a Corrigendum dated 05.01.2024. The Recruitment Notice No.2 provided that the recruitment process will consist of CBT, Skill Test, PST, Document Verification (DV) and Medical Test.
13. Clause 2.4 of the Recruitment Notice No.2 further provided that the Skill Test/PST/DV/DME/Review Medical Test (RME) will be scheduled after conduct of the CBT, and the final result will be declared by CRPF based on performance of candidates in the CBT, subject to their qualifying the Skill Test, PST, DV, Medical Examination and other conditions stipulated in the Recruitment Notice No.2. Importantly, Clause 15.20 of the Recruitment Notice No.2 stated that the candidates can choose only one post that is, either ASI (Steno) or HC (Min) at the time of submitting their application.
14. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, state that initially, for the Skill Test/Typing Test, 65,819 candidates shortlisted from the CBT were invited. Keeping in view the minimal appearance of the candidates and less success rate in the Skill Test, it was decided to enhance the number of shortlisted candidates for Skill Test and accordingly, 75,208 more candidates were shortlisted from amongst CBT qualified candidates, and their Skill Test was conducted. As the success rate of SC/ST category candidates in the Skill Test was also less than the required number, 8,000 more candidates in these categories were shortlisted from CBT qualified candidates and their Skill Tests were later conducted separately. Candidates who qualified Skill Test, PST and DV were called for the Medical Test and the final merit list was thereafter prepared on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the CBT upon their qualifying the Skill Test, PST, DV and DME/RME. As there was no provision in the Recruitment Notice No.2 for keeping a Waitlist/Reserve List, the candidates equivalent to the number of posts were issued the call letters.
15. The petitioners contend that only 1,283 candidates finally joined the post, leaving a vacancy of 206 posts in the selection process, which could have been filled if the Reserve List had been operated.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

16. The learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and Others v. South East Central Railway and Others, (2019) 12 SCC 798, submits that the purpose of maintaining a Reserve List/Waitlist is to ensure that the entire recruitment exercise, which is not only time consuming and entails expenditure on part of the recruiting agency, but also involves effort made by the candidates, does not go waste and the number of posts that are advertised are filled.
17. He places reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Shrey Bajaj & Anr., 2016:DHC:8048-DB, to submit that this Court not only directed the respondents to maintain a Reserve List in its selection process, but also issued instructions that the Staff Selection Commission should take into account the salutary principle on the basis of which the direction to maintain a Reserve List has been issued repeatedly by the Courts.
18. He submits that the above Judgement has been followed in the case of CISF itself in Vikram Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2019 SCC Online Del 12381. Reliance has also been placed on the subsequent Judgements of this Court in Ravi Raj and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., 2022 SCC Online Del 1849; Subhash Chhilar and Others v. Union of India & Anr., 2022 SCC Online Del 4537; Sushma Kumari and Anr. v. Sashastra Seema Bal and Anr. (Order dated 04.09.2024 in WP(C) 12315/2024); and in Vijay Kumar and Ors. v. Sashastra Seema Bal and Anr., 2024:DHC:8488-DB, wherein it has again been directed that a Waitlist should be operated in the respective selection processes.
19. He submits that in spite of repeated Judgments of this Court directing the respondents to maintain a Reserve List/Waitlist, the respondents continue to defy these directions and the mandate of O.M. dated 13.06.2000 issued by the DoP&T. He submits that, therefore, not only Clause 11.8.2 of the Recruitment Notice No.1 in W.P.(C) 380/2024 is liable to be set aside by this Court, a direction is also liable to be issued to the respondents, in both the petitions, to publish a Reserve List/Waitlist of candidates who had otherwise qualified the various stages of the selection process.
20. He submits that in the Notification dated 21.01.2025 issued by the CISF for subsequent recruitments for the same posts, Clause 4.4 provides that the number of candidates shortlisted for the DME shall be about 2 times the number of vacancies advertised . He submits that the respondent-CISF has, therefore, realised that the condition restricting the number of candidates to be called for DME is arbitrary and results in wastage of resources due to non-filling of the advertised posts.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

21. Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P.(C) 380/2024, submits that the Recruitment Notice No.1 had clearly stated that no Reserve List/Waitlist shall be published by the respondents. She submits that this decision was taken for the reason that by the Impugned Recruitment Notice No.1, two posts, that is of Constable/Driver and Constable/DCPO, were advertised. The candidates were to give their preference for the post and the final merit list was to be prepared based on the performance of a candidate in the CBT and the preference to the post. She submits that operation of a Reserve List in such circumstances can result in a candidate lower in merit to secure a post of his preference over a person who is higher in merit. She submits that administrative confusion would also have arisen for the SC/ST/OBC category candidates with the relaxed standards, who might have been otherwise selected against reserved vacancies but were then to be excluded due to candidates from the same categories without relaxed standards occupying those positions based on merit.
22. She submit that as the Recruitment Notice No.1 itself ruled out preparation of a Reserve Panel and therefore the DoP&T O.M. dated 13.06.2000 will have no application.
23. She further submits that in the present case, while calculating the number of vacancies to be advertised, the respondents have implemented the following steps:
20. It is submitted that since, Answering Respondents do not maintain any reserve panel, to address the issues regarding (vacancies arising from non-joining of selected candidates, resignation or death, Respondents have implemented the following steps:
a) The average wastage over the last 5 years, including resignations, deaths, and voluntary retirements, is considered when calculating direct recruitment vacancies.
b) A 10% attrition rate is factored into the total vacancies to account for non-joining or medically unfit candidates during recruitment.
c) Additionally, 5% of vacancies are reserved for compassionate appointments, and recruitment processes for these positions are conducted semi-annually.
d) All vacancies are meticulously calculated based on the Monthly Strength Report (MSR) of the CISF, which accurately reflects the actual vacancies in Direct Entry posts. The MSR takes into account various factors, such as joining or non-joining, induction or de-induction, and release of strength, among others, to ensure an accurate representation of the vacancies in the respective ranks. Accordingly, any unfilled vacancies are automatically carried forward to the next recruitment cycle, ensuring transparency and efficiency in the recruitment process.

24. She submits that the rules of the selection process cannot be changed after commencement of the recruitment process. In support, she places reliance on the Judgement of Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, 2024 SSC Online SC 3184.
25. She submits that an unsuccessful candidate has no vested right to insist on his/her consideration in absence of any rule requiring for the preparation of a Waitlist. In support, she places reliance on the Judgements of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar and Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 1709; State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Bharati S., 2023 SCC Online SC 665; Vallampati Satish Babu v. State of Andra Pradesh and Ors., (2022) 13 SCC 193; and Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 681; as well as that of this Court in Dr. Shashi Bhushan v. University of Delhi & Anr., 2024 SCC Online Del 2656.
26. She contends that the petitioners are fence-sitters and are not permitted under the law to approbate and reprobate. She places reliance on the Judgements of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. N. Murugesan and Ors., (2022) 2 SCC 25; and in Anupal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 173, in support of her submission.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
27. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties.
28. Before we discuss the law on the subject, we would first take note of the relevant conditions in the Recruitment Notice No.1 issued by the CISF in W.P. (C) 380/2024.
29. Clause 4.3 of the Recruitment Notice No.1 gives the stages of the recruitment process before DME. The Note appended thereto further states that in case the sequence of the first two stages is inter-changed and the OMR based/CBT mode written examination is held before the PST/PET/Documentation and Trade Test, it will not be mandatory to call all the qualified candidates in the written examination for the second stage, that is, PST/PET/Documentation and Trade Test, and in such an event, the number of candidates to be called for the second stage would depend on the total number of qualified candidates in the written examination with reference to the number of vacancies for each post and each category and accordingly, the cut off marks would be prescribed for each category.
30. Further, Clause 4.5 states that a provisional Select List, as per the available vacancies in each post and category, will be called for the DME and thereafter, a final selection will be made on basis of merit in the written examination. Clause 4 of the Recruitment Notice No.1 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
4. Salient Features :
4.1 Applications must be submitted in online mode at the official website of CISF i.e. www.cisfrectt.in. No other mode of submission of application is allowed.
4.2 The Call up letter/ Admit card for all stages of recruitment as mentioned below will be issued to the candidates through online mode only at CISF recruitment website www.cisfrectt.in with facility to download the same and will not be sent by post. i.e. for
a) PST/PET, Documentation & Trade Test
b) Written Examination
c) Detailed Medical Examination
4.3 There are following two stages of recruitment before Detailed Medical Examination:-
a) PST/PET, Documentation & Trade Test.
b) OMR Base/CBT mode written examination which will be bilingual i.e. in Hindi & English languages.
Note : The sequence of the above two stages may interchange at the discretion of CISF due to administrative reasons/ prevailing circumstances. If written examination is conducted in the 151 stage, the number of candidates to be called for the 2nd stage would purely depend on merit in the written examination for which qualifying marks would be 35% for UR, EWS & ESM and 33% for SC/ST/OBC. However, it will not be mandatory to call all the qualified candidates in the written examination for the 2nd stage i.e. PST/PET/Documentation and Trade Test. The number of candidates to be called for 2nd stage would depend on total number of qualified candidates in the written examination with reference to the number of vacancies for each post and each category. Accordingly, cut off marks would be prescribed for each category.
4.4 List of provisionally selected candidates post wise and category wise will be uploaded on CISF recruitment website www.cisfrectt.in.
4.5 The candidates who find place in the provisional select list as per available vacancy in each post and category will be called for Detailed Medical Examination (DME).
4.6 Final selection will be made on the basis of merit in the written examination.

31. The candidates were also advised to submit only one single online application by virtue of which, they will be eligible for both the posts advertised, that is of Constable/Driver and Constable/DCPO. The candidates were, however, to give their preference to the two posts as first and second preference. To this effect, Clause 8.5 and Clause 8.6 of the Recruitment Notice No.1 are reproduced hereinunder:-
8.5 The candidates are advised to submit only single online application by virtue of which they will be eligible for both Constable/Driver and Constable/DCPO giving their 151 and 2nd preference for both the posts as described in Para 1.1 above.
8.6 Preference for Post may be indicated in Application Form in the following manner:-
Constable/Driver (1st preference)
Constable/DCPO (2nd preference)
OR
Constable/DCPO (1st preference)
Constable/Driver (2nd preference)

32. Clause 11.7.1 is relevant to the controversy, inasmuch as, it states that after completion of the written test, a category wise merit list for general, SC, ST, etc., will be drawn separately on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained in the written test by the candidate. It further provided that as two options are provided for the two posts, that is, Constable/Driver and Constable/DCPO, allotment of post will be on basis of merit-cum-preference. Clause 11.7.5 states that final list will thereafter be prepared and published on the CISF recruitment website, with Sub-Clause (c) thereof specifically stating that no waiting list will be kept/maintained. Clauses 11.7.1 and 11.7.5 are reproduced hereinunder:-
11.7.1. After completion Written Examination, category wise merit list for General, SC, ST, OBC, EWS & ESM will be drawn separately on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in written test by the candidate. As two options are available for two posts i.e. Constable/Driver and Constable/DCPO, allotment to posts will be on the basis of merit cum preference. Therefore, candidates are advised to make their preferences with care.
xxx
11 .7.5 Final result will be published on CISF Recruitment website i.e. www.cisfrectt.in.
Note:
a) The candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility conditions for admission to the examination. Their admission at all the stages of examination will be purely provisional, subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. If, on verification, at any time before or after the PET/PST & documentation, Trade Test, Written Examination and Detailed Medical Examination, it is found that they do not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions; their candidature for the examination will be cancelled by the Department.
b) In case any candidate is found ineligible or suppressing facts on any ground at any time during the recruitment process, his candidature/ selection/ appointment will be cancelled accordingly.
c) No waiting list will be kept/ maintained.

33. Clause 11.8.1 states that only those candidates, who have qualified both stages of recruitment, that is, PST/PET/Documentation and Trade Test as also the written examination, will be required to appear for the DME. It states that the number of candidates to be called for the medical examination would depend on the merit position of the candidates in written examination and cut off marks in each post and each category with reference to the number of vacancies in each post and each category. Clause 11.8.2 specifically stated that the candidates equal to the number of the vacancies will be called for the DME. Clauses 11.8.1 and 11.8.2 of the Recruitment Notice No.1 are reproduced hereinunder:-
11.8.1 Only those candidates who have qualified both the stages will be required to appear in Detailed Medical Examination. However, the number of candidates to be called for medical examination would depend on the merit position of the candidates in written examination and cut-off marks in each post and each category with reference to the number of vacancies in each post and each category. However, being called & declared Fit in Detailed Medical Examination does not give them the right of final selection. Thus their claim for selection on such ground will not be entertained.
11.8.2. The candidates equal to the number of vacancies will be called for Detailed Medical Examination. The selected candidates will be medically examined by the Medical Boards to assess their physical and medical fitness.

34. From the above, it is apparent that the Recruitment Notice No. 1 specifically stated that only the number of candidates equivalent to the number of posts advertised, shall be called for DME and that no wait-list is to be operated. The effect of these specific clauses shall be discussed hereinafter.
35. As far as W.P. (C) 6898/2024 is concerned, the Recruitment Notice No.2 called for applications for the post of ASI (Steno) and Head Constable (Ministerial), with Clause 15.20 thereof stating that the candidates could apply only for one of the two advertised posts at the time of submitting their applications.
36. Clauses 2 and 13.1 of the Recruitment Notice No.2 stated that the recruitment process will consist of CBT, Skill Test, PST, DV and medical test. Clause 2.4 thereof stated that the Skill Test/PST/DV /DME/RME will be scheduled after the conduct of the CBT, while Clause 2.7 thereof stated that the final result will be declared by the CRPF based on the performance of the candidates in CBT and subject to their qualifying their Skill Test/PST/DV/Medical Examination and other conditions stipulated in the Recruitment Notice. Clauses 2, 2.4 and 2.7 of the Recruitment Notice No. 2 are reproduced hereinunder:-
2. The recruitment process will consist of Computer Based Test, Skill Test, Physical Standard Tet(PST), Documents verification and Medical Test. The salient features of the recruitment are as under:
xxx
2.4 Skill Test/Physical Standard Test (PST)/Documents Verification (DV)/Detailed Medical Test (DME)/Review Medical Test(RME) will be scheduled after conduct of Computer Based Test.
xxx
2.7 Final result will be declared by the CRPF based on the performance of candidates in the CBT subject to their qualifying the Skill Test, PST, DV, Medical Examination and other conditions stipulated in the Recruitment Notice.

37. Clause 13.3 states that only candidates who qualified the CBT, shall be called for the next stage of recruitment, that is, Skill Test/PST/DV/DME.
38. In terms of Clause 13.3.2, the Skill Test is to be of qualifying nature and no marks will be awarded for Skill Test.
39. Clause 15, which summarised the mode of selection of the candidates, is reproduced hereinunder:-
15. Mode of Selection:

15.1 The recruitment process will consist of CBT/Skill Test/PST &DV and medical examination (DME/RME).
15.2 Minimum qualifying marks in Computer Based Test are follows:
15.2.1. UR: 40%
15.2.2. EWS/OBC/SC/ST: 35%
15.3 Marks scored by candidates in Computer Based Test (CDT) will be normalized and such normalized scores will be used to determine final merit and cut off mark.
15.4 On the basis of their performance in Computer Based Test, candidates will be shortlisted for appearing in Skill Test. The CRPF shall have the discretion to fix different cut-off marks in Computer Based Test taking into consideration among others, category-wise vacancies and category-wise number of candidates.
15.5 Skill test are mandatory but qualifying in nature.
15.6 Only those candidates who qualified in Computer Based Test (Part-1) will be allowed to appear in Skill Test.
15.7 PST are mandatory but qualifying in nature.
15.8 Only those candidates who qualified in Skill test will be allowed to PST and documents verification.
15.9 On the basis of their performance in CBT, candidates will be shortlisted for appearing in Medical Test.
15.10 Candidates are required to submit all documents in original for verification at the time of Document Verification.
15.11 Final Selection will be made on the basis of performance of candidates in Computer Based Test.

40. From the above, it is apparent that unlike Recruitment Notice No. 1, Recruitment Notice No. 2 was silent as far as preparation of a Reserve List of candidates is concerned; it neither forbade it nor specifically provided for its preparation.
41. With the above narration of facts, we shall now discuss the relevant cited precedents on the issue.
42. In Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra), the Supreme Court emphasised the object and rationale of maintaining a Reserve List, by observing as under:
6. Our country is governed by the rule of law. Arbitrariness is an anathema to the rule of law. When an employer invites applications for filling up a large number of posts, a large number of unemployed youth apply for the same. They spend time in filling the form and pay the application fees. Thereafter, they spend time to prepare for the examination. They spend time and money to travel to the place where written test is held. If they qualify the written test they have to again travel to appear for the interview and medical examination, etc. Those who are successful and declared to be passed have a reasonable expectation that they will be appointed. No doubt, as pointed out above, this is not a vested right. However, the State must give some justifiable, non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the post. When the employer is the State it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot without any rhyme or reason decide not to fill up the post. It must give some plausible reason for not filling up the posts. The courts would normally not question the justification but the justification must be reasonable and should not be an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical exercise of discretion vested in the State. It is in the light of these principles that we need to examine the contentions of SECR.

43. This Court in The Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. v. MS. Rajni & Ors., 2013:DHC:1180-DB, was considering a Directive dated 04.07.2008 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi to the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) directing that henceforth, results declared by the Board shall be confined only to the number of vacancies for which the requisition is sent. The Court emphasised that in the selection process, the scrutiny of the application forms is not conducted before the examination; it is only post the result that the document verification is conducted and, if the candidate is unable to remove the deficiencies, the letters offering appointment are not issued to such candidates; there is also a delay in issuing the offers of appointment and in the interregnum many candidates who were empanelled secure equal or better jobs elsewhere thereby resulting in large number of vacancies not being filled up. The Court, therefore, held that as every endeavour has to be made to fill up vacant posts, and not filling up vacant posts is an exception to be justified on a reason, the Directive dated 04.07.2008 cannot be sustained and was quashed. The Court directed the DSSSB to prepare a Reserve List with the life of the Reserve Panel being six months.
44. In Shrey Bajaj (supra), while considering an Employment Notice dated 16.03.2013 for the posts of Sub Inspectors in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces, Assistant Sub Inspectors in the Central Industrial Security Force, and Intelligence Officers in Narcotics Control Board, this Court followed a Judgment of this Court inter alia in MS. Rajni (supra), and observed as under:
11. Conscious of the problem that waiting lists of eligible and suitable candidates may not be maintained, and this results in delays in appointment etc., the Department of Personnel and Training has issued Memorandum No.41019/18/97-Estt.(B) dated 13th June, 2000.
The Memorandum records that the UPSC, wherever possible, should maintain a reserve panel of candidates found suitable on the basis of selection made in the cases of direct recruit, etc. These candidates on the wait list would be recommended by the UPSC when the selected candidate does not join or in case he resigns or dies within six months of his joining. The Ministries/ Department were advised that whenever such a contingency arises, they should first approach the UPSC for nomination of a candidate from the reserve panel, if any, and only thereafter resort to an alternative method of recruitment. The OM also referred to the 5th Central Pay Commission’s recommendation (in Paragraph 17.11 of its Report) to reduce delays in filling up of posts or vacancies in consultation with the UPSC. It was decided that whenever selection was made through the UPSC a request for nomination from the reserve list would be made in the event or occurrence of vacancy caused by non-joining or where a candidate joins but resigns or dies within one year from their date of joining. Such vacancy would not be treated as a fresh vacancy.
Pertinently it was also observed that the same principle would apply when selections are made for the post through other recruiting agency such as Staff Selection Commission.
12. Candidates who appeared for selection do not have any right to claim appointment, but they must be considered for appointment in accordance with law. In the present case, the cut off merit list was restricted to the number of posts as advertised. This is obviously irrational and, therefore, would offend the OM and decisions quoted above, for no ground or reason is forthcoming not to have a panel or waiting list. The inaction and failure would be arbitrary and denies the first respondent’s right of consideration. This is not fair and just to the candidates who had appeared in the selection, had qualified, and should have been appointed when the advertised vacancies were not filled but for no reserve/wait list.

45. This Court further directed as under:
17. The Staff Selection Commission must take into notice the ratio and directions of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of M. S. Rajni (Supra), which are salutary and merited. Had due notice and consideration to the ratio been given, this controversy and litigation would have been avoided.

46. In Vikram Singh (supra), this Court, in a recruitment process of CISF itself, placing reliance on MS. Rajni (supra) and Shrey Bajaj (supra), rejected the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents therein, that the O.M. dated 13.06.2000 was not applicable to it. The Court further held that there can be no logical reason for not preparing a Reserve List. The Court further rejected the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents therein that the training process of the candidates who were selected had begun and it may cause administrative problems if a Reserve List is now to be operated. The Court observed and directed as under:
14. Therefore, the stand taken by the Respondents in the present case that the aforementioned judgment involved directions to various agencies and would not apply to the CISF is erroneous and accordingly stands rejected.
15. Even otherwise with the Respondents having advertised 447 vacancies, there appears to be no logical reason for not preparing a reserve list. The contention of learned counsel for the Respondents, on the basis of averment in the counter affidavit, that candidates from the reserved list may miss out on the training already being imparted to the 372 selected candidates overlooks the fact that there have been numerous instances where there is a large batch of candidates qualifying in a selection, all of them may not be able to be sent for training at the same time but are further split into groups and sent for training in batches. In any event of the present case, the fault entirely lies with the Respondents for not adhering to the settled legal position explained in the above decisions of the Court interpreting OM dated 13th June, 2000 and underscoring the need to prepare the reserve list of candidates.
16. Consequently, the Court directs that the Respondents will now prepare a reserve list of candidates pursuant to the result already declared on 29th August, 2019 taking into account the reservations provided in terms of the advertisement. Those figuring in the reserve list, including the Petitioners if they do figure in such reserved list, will be sent offers of appointment. This exercise be completed not later than 8 weeks from today. The petition is allowed to the above terms. The pending application is also disposed of. No order as to costs.

47. We must note that this Court, following the above Judgments, in Ravi Raj (supra); Subhash Chhilar (supra); Sushma Kumari (supra); Seema Bal (supra); and in Vijay Kumar (supra) again directed a Waitlist to be operated in the respective selection processes.
48. We, however, have been informed that the Judgement of this Court in Ravi Raj (supra) has been challenged by the respondents before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 41522/2022, and the Supreme Court, vide its Order dated 27.01.2023, has stayed the operation and effect of the said Judgment. Similarly, the Judgment in Sushma Kumari (supra) has also been challenged by the respondents, whereon, by an Order dated 20.01.2025 passed in SLP No. 568/2025, the Supreme Court has granted stay on the operation of the said Judgment.
49. Having noted the above judgments where directions were issued for preparation of a Wait/Reserve List, we now take notice of the Judgments which take a contrary view.
50. In Suresh Prasad (supra), the Supreme Court specifically answered the following question of law:-
Whether the High Court was justified in law in giving direction to the appellant to fill up the vacancies which remained unfilled due to candidates not turning up to join the post?

51. The Court held as under:
6. We find merit in this appeal preferred by the Board. In the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India it has been held by this Court that even if number of vacancies are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against existing vacancies. That ordinarily such notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. It was further held that the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies unless the relevant recruitment rules indicate.

52. Following the above, in Vallampati Sathish Babu (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that in absence of any specific provision for a waiting list, and on the contrary there being a specific provision that there shall not be any waiting list and that the post remaining unfilled on any ground shall have to be carried forward for the next recruitment, the candidate had no right to claim appointment to the post which remained unfilled.
53. In Karunesh Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that an employer always has adequate discretion and an element of flexibility in selecting an employee. Interference with the selection process can be made only when it is found to be arbitrary or contrary to law. It was held that in the absence of any rule requiring the preparation of a waiting list, there is no vested right of the unsuccessful candidate to insist upon his/her consideration; such candidate can claim a right to be considered for appointment to the post which remained unfilled only where there is a provision for a waiting list as per the statutory provision. In absence of a specific provision for a waiting list and on the contrary, there being a specific provision that there shall not be any waiting list and the post remaining unfilled on any ground shall have to be carried forward for the next recruitment cycle, a candidate shall not have any vested right to demand creation thereof.
54. From the above discussion on the Judgments applicable to the question that arises for consideration in the present set of petitions, it would be apparent that where the rules or the advertisement provides for preparation of a reserve list, such reserve list must be prepared by the employer and in case of a vacancy remaining unfilled, though the candidate in the reserve list has no indefeasible right to appointment, the State or its instrumentality cannot act arbitrarily, denying appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the reserve list. At the same time, if the rules or the advertisement does not provide for preparation of reserve list and, in fact, provide that no such reserve list shall be prepared, a candidate cannot claim a right for the reserve list to be prepared and for him/her to be considered against the vacancies that remain unfilled. Though normally it would be advisable for the State and its instrumentalities to maintain a reserve list, by a Writ of Mandamus, they cannot be directed to do so. The underlying principle for the above is that there is no compulsion on the employer to fill all vacancies available with it for a post, nor is there any vested right in a candidate for being given appointment against the vacancy.
55. Equally applicable is the principle that a candidate having participated in the selection process, cannot then challenge the same as they would be barred from such challenge on the basis of the principle of estoppel. Reference in this regard may be made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Anupal Singh (supra) as also in N. Murugesan (supra).
56. Reverting back to the facts of the present cases, as far as W.P. (C) 380/2024 is concerned, the Recruitment Notice No.1 in no un-cleared terms states that candidates equivalent only to the number of vacancies shall be placed in the final list for purposes of DME. It further stated that no reserve list shall be operated or published. Additionally, the Central Industrial Security Force, Fire Wing, Constable (Driver-Cum-Pump Operator) Recruitment Rules, 2013 as well as the Central Industrial Security Force, Security Wing, Constable (Driver) Recruitment Rules, 2013 do not provide for the creation of a reserve/waiting List. Therefore, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Karunesh Kumar (supra) shall apply to the facts of the case, and no direction to prepare and issue a Reserve/Wait List can be passed.
57. We are also impressed by the submission that by the Recruitment Notice No. 1, two posts were advertised and the candidates applying were to be considered for both the posts simultaneously and given the offers on merit-cum-preference. Operation of a Reserve List in such a scenario would cause administrative chaos and may act to the detriment of candidates securing higher merit vis-à-vis their preference post.
58. It is also to be remembered that the petitioner participated in the selection process being aware of the said conditions. They are now estopped from challenging the same. Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, the respondent has the discretion, unless otherwise mandated by law or rules, not to operate a reserve list. The challenge to Clause 11.8.2 of Recruitment Notice No.1, therefore, is also not sustainable.
59. As far as W.P. (C) 6898/2024 is concerned, we have already taken note of that there was no prohibition either in the Recruitment Rules or in the advertisement on maintaining a Reserve List. The purpose, object, and the need of maintaining a Reserve List has been explained by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra).
60. The object of maintaining a Reserve List is also highlighted in OM No.DOPT-1673566208683 dated 13.06.2000, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, DoPT, which states as under:
Subject:- Operation of reserve panels prepared on the basis of selections made by UPSC, Staff Selection Commission, other recruiting Agencies and where selections are made by Ministries/Departments etc. – acceptance of recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission reg.
The undersigned is directed to invite attention to this Department’s Office Memorandum quoted in the margin and to say that in terms of these Office Memorandum, it was informed that the Union Public Service Commission, wherever possible, maintains a reserve panel of candidates found suitable on the basis of selections made by them for appointment on direct recruitment, transfer on deputation, transfer basis and the reserve panel is operated by the UPSC on a request received from the Ministry/Department concerned when the candidate recommended by the UPSC either does not join, thereby causing a replacement vacancy or he joins but resigns or dies within six months of his joining. Ministries/Departments were advised that whenever such a contingency arises, they should first approach the UPSC for nomination of a candidate from the reserve panel, if any. The recruitment process be treated as completed only after hearing from the UPSC and the Ministry/Department concerned may resort to any alternative method of recruitment to fill up the vacancy thereafter.
2. The Fifth Central Pay Commission, in para 17.11 of its Report, has recommended that with a view to reduce delay in filling up of the posts, vacancies resulting from resignation or death of an incumbent within one year of his appointment should be filled immediately by the candidate from the reserve panel, if a fresh panel is not available by then. Such a vacancy should not be treated as a fresh vacancy. This recommendation has been examined in consultation with the UPSC and it has been decided that in future, where a selection has been made through UPSC, a request for nomination from the reserve list, if any, may be made to the UPSC in the event of occurrence of a vacancy caused by non-joining of the candidate within the stipulated time allowed for joining the post or where a candidate joins but he resigns or dies within a period of one year from the date of his joining, if a fresh panel is not available by then. Such a vacancy should not be treated as fresh vacancy.
3. It has also been decided that where selections for posts under the Central Government are made through other recruiting agencies such as Staff Selection Commission or by the Ministries/Departments directly and the reserve panels are similarly prepared, the procedure for operation of reserve panels maintained by UPSC as described in para 2 above will also be applicable for the reserve panels maintained by the other recruiting agencies/authorities.

61. However, in absence of a mandate on the respondent to prepare a Reserve List and applying the principles laid down in Karunesh Kumar (supra), Suresh Prasad (supra), and in Vallampati Satish Babu (supra), a direction to maintain a reserve list post the selection process having been completed in terms of the advertisement, cannot be issued.
62. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present set of petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed. The pending applications also stand dismissed.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

APRIL 17, 2025/SG/IK

W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 29 of 29