In the absence of a specific statutory provision or rule, an unsuccessful candidate has no indefeasible right to be appointed to a post, and the establishment or operation of a reserve panel for such purpose remains within the domain of executive discretion.

ORDER (ORAL)

HON’BLE MR. MANISH GARG, MEMBER (J):

In the instant OA, the applicant seeks following reliefs:-

(a) Direct the respondents to fill up the notified posts and consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe) with all the consequential benefits.

(b) Award costs of the proceedings and

(c) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The applicant submits that he was under a bona fide belief that he had been selected through a non-selection process, however, his name did not appear in the shortlist. He submits that neither the applicant nor the respondents prepared or operated any waiting list or reserve panel in the present matter. Consequently, the applicant was deprived of his valuable right to be considered in accordance with the applicable provisions. The respondents were required to follow the Office Memorandum dated 13.06.2002 issued by the DoPT, which mandates that even in a non-selection process, provisions for maintaining and operating a reserve panel should be made. As this was not done in the present case, the applicant’s claim deserves to succeed

3. He further submits that, as per the information available to the applicant, one vacancy still remains unfilled. In support of his submissions, and to buttress his arguments, the applicant draws attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. The relevant extract, quoted inter alia, at page 108, reads as follows:-

“Presently, there is only one vacancy of SI (Exe.)/Male in Delhi Police Exam, 2012, which occurred due to cancellation of candidature of one selected candidate namely Jitender Kumar Sharma, Roll No.2405000154 of UR category, whose candidature was cancelled only on 15.06.2018, is available with Delhi Police and the same will be adjusted and carry forward in the subsequent exam in due course of time. The final result of Exams, 2013, 2014, 2015 & 2016 have already been declared by the SSC, and process of Exam-2017 is at final stage (pending for medical examination) with the SSC and final result will be declared by the SSC at the earliest. As such the request of the applicant is not tenable at this stage.”

4. He would submit that, despite the aforesaid position, and particularly in view of the pendency of the matter before this Hon’ble Tribunal, it was incumbent upon the respondents to withhold one vacancy. Instead, the respondents carried forward the vacancies that arose due to various circumstances, including resignation and other contingencies, which is contrary to the settled position of law.

5. It is further submitted that the applicant draws attention to the peculiar facts of the present case, particularly with reference to the treatment of departmental candidates, as reflected at page 63 of the OA. The relevant extract reads as follows: -

(i) 28 candidates earlier selected in the List-III (Departmental candidates) in the result are now qualifying in List-II (Male candidates selected against open vacancies).

(ii) 1 candidate who was selected against UR vacancy in List-II will be selected against SC vacancy in List-II.

(iii) 29 candidates selected in the result will now not be selected in List-II and their result has been withdrawn/cancelled (vice S.No.(i) and (ii) above).

(iv) 28 candidates are being additionally selected in List-III (vice S.No. (i) above)

You are requested to give the opportunity of hearing to the concerned candidates in compliance of the CAT order.”

6. It is further submitted that the above changes demonstrate that 28 departmental candidates, who were earlier not qualifie