Delhi High Court
Sachin And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 April, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
* 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 1 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
JUDGMENT
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-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 2 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 3 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 4 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 5 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 6 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 7 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 8 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 9 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 10 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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. forSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 11 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 12 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 13 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
“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 toSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 14 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 15 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 16 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 17 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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 notSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 18 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 19 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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 aSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 20 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 21 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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 offersSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 22 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 23 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
“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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 24 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 25 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 26 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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,Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 27 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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 SelectionSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 28 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 380/2024 & W.P.(C) 6898/2024 Page 29 of 29
By:RENUKA NEGI
Signing Date:17.04.2025
20:57:11