Empanelment On A Reserve Panel Does Not Give A Candidate The Right To Be Appointed: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court, while recently dismissing the petition filed by the Petitioner to direct the UPSC to consider his name for the appointment of the post of Sr. Scientific Officer Gr.-II due to his name in the reserve panel, has observed that a candidate does not have an indefeasible and absolute right to get appointed after the exhaustion of the life of a Reserve Panel.
"Having regard to the dictum of Apex Court in the catena of judgments as extracted hereinabove, it is axiomatic that the empanelment of a candidate in Reserve panel confers no right upon the candidate to be appointed, merely on account of being so empanelled," Division Bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul & Justice Talwant Singh noted.
In the present matter, the Union Public Service Commission ("Respondent No 1") issued an advertisement dated 03.07.2009 inviting application for the post of Sr. Scientific Officer Gr.-II (Ballistic) in OBC as well as unreserved category. Further, to reserve one candidate's name in the event of failure of the selected candidate to join the subject posts within one year, a Reserve Panel was provided. On 11.05.2010, Respondent No 1 recommended two candidates and also created a reserve panel for one candidate, which was valid for 18 months from the date of finalization of the recommendation of Commission by its Interview Board Report, which could be extended upto two years, in the case where the chosen candidate joined, but resigned or died within one year of joining. Upon offer for an appointment, one candidate out of the two selected candidates joined the post. The Petitioner was informed about his name in the Reserve Panel when he applied under the Right to Information Act to inquire about the vacancy. Owing to the non-joining of one selected candidate & subsequent cancellation of his candidature, a request was made to Respondent No 1 to recommend the name from the Reserve Panel, which was turned down by noting that the validity period of the Reserve Panel was expired. The Petitioner filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal against the 'respondent No.1' and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory ("respondent No 2") praying to direct Respondent No. 1 to recommend/release the name of the Petitioner, for the post from the reserve panel effective from May 2010 with all the consequent benefits till date which was dismissed. Thus, the Petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 & 227 assailing the Central Administrative Tribunal's order.
"Reserve Panel of one candidate which had been maintained, in the subject case, was valid only for 18 months from the date of finalization of the Commission's recommendation in normal circumstance, but could however be extended for a total period of 02 years. Viewed in this backdrop, the decision of respondent No.1 not to recommend the name of Petitioner from the Reserve Panel cannot be faulted, since in the instant case, IBR was finalized on 26.4.2010 and had become inoperable by the time his recommendation was sought via communication dated 11.05.2012. In the instant case, respondent No.2 approached respondent No.1 only after the expiry of the validity of the Reserve Panel, after which the Reserve Panel was rendered null and void, and the only option available in law to fill the vacancy was through a fresh recruitment process.", the Bench noted.
Reliance was placed on Manoj Manu and Anr vs. Union of India and Anr, reported as (2013) 12 SCC 171 to observe that merely mentioning the candidate in Reserve Panel doesn't confer upon him a right to appoint ex-debito justitiae. The Bench further observed that mandamus might be issued not in circumstances when the decision has been taken rationally in accordance with the stipulated conditions for preserving the Reserve Panel & based on conscious application of mind and only when the denial to the release of the name from the Reserve Panel is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.
Thus the Court, while dismissing the petition, observed that "It is thus manifest that respondent No. 1's decision not to operate the Reserve Panel beyond the period of 02 years outer period prescribed, as reckoned from the finalization of IBR on 26.04.2010, which ceased on 26.04.2012; cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable, but is rather based on cogent, rational and conscious application of mind, as no recommendation of the name of the petitioner could have been made as requested by the respondent No.2 for the first time only on 11.05.2012, admittedly beyond the validity period of the Reserve Panel."
Case Title: Ravinder Chauhan V. Union Public Service Commission And Anr.