1. The Petitioner, who was serving as a Principal in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, applied for the post of Director (Evaluation) pursuant to an advertisement issued by the National Institute of Open Schooling [“NIOS”] in September 2021, wherein the said post was notified as an unreserved vacancy to be filled by way of direct recruitment. He was called for interview vide communication dated 28th January, 2022.

2. It is the Petitioner’s case that despite participation in the selection process, the results of the interview were not declared in the public domain. Consequently, the Petitioner, on 28th October, 2022, sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. By way of response dated 28th November, 2022, he was informed that the selected candidate had been issued an offer of appointment on 16th April, 2022. Thereafter, upon further queries, NIOS, vide reply dated 24th January, 2023, disclosed that the Petitioner had been placed at Serial No. 1 in the reserve panel/waitlist and that the selected candidate had not joined the post till that date.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid information, the Petitioner addressed a representation dated 30th January, 2023 to NIOS, requesting that he be considered for appointment, asserting that the offer issued to the selected candidate had lapsed on account of non-joining within the stipulated period. However, no action was taken on the said representation.

4. In the above background, the Petitioner, by way of this petition, seeks directions to NIOS to appoint him to the post of Director (Evaluation).

Petitioner’s contentions

5. In support of the petition, Mr. Kuldeep Rai, counsel for the Petitioner, makes the following submissions:

5.1. The Petitioner, having been placed at Serial No. 1 in the reserve panel for the post of Director (Evaluation), acquired a legitimate right to be considered for appointment upon failure of the selected candidate to join within the stipulated time. NIOS has acted arbitrarily in not operating the reserve panel despite the vacancy having arisen.

5.2. Reliance is placed on Office Memorandum [“O.M.”] dated 13th June, 2000 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training [“DoPT”], to contend that where a selected candidate does not join, the vacancy is required to be filled from the reserve panel and cannot be treated as a fresh vacancy. The said instructions are binding and applicable to NIOS, particularly in view of the recruitment framework adopted by it.

5.3. As per the DoPT norms governing appointment and extension of joining time, a selected candidate is ordinarily required to join within one to two months, and even with extension, the outer limit cannot exceed six months from the date of issuance of the offer of appointment. Upon expiry of this period, the offer is deemed to have lapsed automatically, without the need for any formal order of cancellation.

5.4. In the present case, the offer of appointment issued in April 2022 stood lapsed upon expiry of six months, as the selected candidate had not joined within the permissible period. Consequently, NIOS was bound to operate the reserve panel and offer appointment to the Petitioner.

5.5. NIOS has failed to disclose any valid or legally sustainable basis for granting repeated extensions of time to the selected candidate beyond the permissible limit. The RTI responses do not indicate the nature, duration, or authority for such extensions, thereby rendering the action arbitrary and non-transparent.

5.6. NIOS, being an autonomous body, is nonetheless bound by the instructions and guidelines issued by the Government of India, particularly where its own rules are silent. In this regard, reliance is placed on the applicable recruitment framework of NIOS, which adopts DoPT guidelines for residuary matters.

5.7. The subsequent appointment of the selected candidate, allegedly after prolonged and impermissible extensions, cannot defeat the Petitioner’s right, which had crystallised upon lapse of the offer o