The court emphasized the obligation to maintain a Reserve Panel for timely appointments, asserting candidates have a legitimate expectation to be considered for unfilled vacancies, as mandated by earlier judicial directives.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

1. The petitioners impugn the order/judgment of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('Tribunal') passed on 15.03.2019 in OA No.3528/2017; they seek issuance of a direction to the respondents to prepare, maintain and operate a Reserve Panel/Wait List apropos the recruitment process conducted by way of Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination-2015; and consider the petitioners for appointment, by making appropriate recommendations to the various Cadres in accordance with their respective Merit Positions and to assign them all consequential benefits.

2. In essence, the issue before the court is whether any obligation exists on the part of Union of India to seek details of unfilled vacancies after the initial list of successful candidates (prepared/recommended by it) gets exhausted, and to offer appointments to persons, in the order of merit, from the same selection against the said unfilled vacancies.

3. The facts leading to the present petition are that, the petitioners had applied for recruitment in Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination conducted by the respondent-Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in 2015; they were meritorious enough to be classed in a Reserve Panel/Wait List. They want the respondents to maintain and operate the said List, to be exhausted by making appointments against requisitioned vacancies that may remain unfilled, from the candidates in the Merit List. The SSC has been reluctant to prepare a Reserve Panel citing difficulty in operating it, especially in a case of combined examination for filling vacancies in different services/departments. The petitioners were not appointed against the vacancies; instead a fresh recruitment exercise was initiated.

4. It is pertinent to note that such non-compliance by the Staff Selection Commission has continued despite specific instructions issued by this court in Union of India v. Shrey Bajaj & Anr., WP(C) No. 11739/2016 for the Department of Personnel & Training to maintain a Reserve Panel/Wait List by the recruitment agencies towards the recruitment process, (vide several Office Memorandums dated 10/06/1959, 18/01/1990 and 13/06/2000).

5. On 16.05.2019, this court had passed following order:

"....

1. Matter is heard in part.

2. We have heard Mr.Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents in the presence of Mr.Ashim Khurana, Chairman, Staff Selection Commission. While it is not disputed by Mr.Bhardwaj that the decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Shrey Bajaj & Anr., WP(C) 11739/2016, decided on 16.12.2016 has attained finality and is binding on the respondent, however, he submits that there are practical difficulties in implementation of the said decision, when the common recruitment process relates to vacancies in different departments; having different posts and different pay-scales/grade pay, and; different educational qualifications. He also submits that normally, the joining time in respect of the persons/candidates initially recruited is 3 to 6 months of the declaration of results.

3. The difficulty expressed by Mr.Bhardwaj is that if a wait-list/panel is maintained, and vacancies arise in different departments; for different posts having different pay-scales/grades, and; different educational qualifications, the candidates from the wait-list cannot straightway be offered the vacant slots, and it would be essenti