Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000273-000273 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 34571/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH |
| Precedent Value | Clarifies and reaffirms established principles on operation and limitation of public-service reserve lists |
| Affirms | The limited, contingent nature of reserve-list rights and rule-based validity periods under service jurisprudence |
| Type of Law | Service law / Administrative law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The six-month period for operating a PSC’s reserve list begins from the date the original select/merit list is forwarded to the appointing authority, not from the date a selected candidate declines or cancels an appointment. A candidate on a reserve list acquires only a contingent, non-vested right to fill vacancies arising within that validity window. Once that period lapses, no mandamus can issue for appointment from the list and no claim of “negative equality” can compel perpetuation of any illegal or expired selection. Moreover, a Public Service Commission is a “person aggrieved” under Article 226 and may maintain writ appeals against orders directing or mandating recruitment steps affecting its function. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts nationwide; Supreme Court benches considering reserve-list disputes |
| Distinguishes |
|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Public Service Commissions are “persons aggrieved” under Article 226 and have locus standi to maintain writ appeals even if the State does not contest single-judge orders.
- Six-month validity of a PSC reserve list runs from forwarding the original select list to the appointing authority, not from the date a selected candidate refuses or cancels appointment.
- Candidates on a reserve list hold only a contingent, non-vested claim to vacancies arising within that statutory window; no indefeasible right of appointment arises thereafter.
- High courts cannot issue mandamus to appoint from an expired or un-requisitioned reserve list, nor enforce “negative equality” to perpetuate any administrative or judicial irregularity.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Maintainability of PSC appeals
- PSC, under Articles 315–320, has constitutional duty and independent interest in recommendations.
- Directions requiring PSC to act engage its obligations, making it “aggrieved.”
- Nature and timing of reserve lists
- A reserve list is a contingent merit queue for vacancies arising after select-list exhaustion.
- Its statutory life is strictly six months from forwarding of the original list (Rajasthan Rules 24/21).
- Limit on candidate rights
- No indefeasible right to appointment on select or reserve lists (Shankarsan Dash).
- Only contingent right to fill vacancies within validity period.
- Rule construction and purposive approach
- “May” in forwarding rule confers discretion; failure to forward needs valid reason, but no extension of six-month window.
- Negative-equality prohibition
- Illegal actions benefiting some cannot be repeated for others (Jagjit Singh; Anup Senapati; Tinku v. Haryana).
- Mandamus limits
- Courts cannot compel appointments contrary to unambiguous rule limits or without fresh requisition; statutory rule prevails over circulars.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Public Service Commission)
- PSC is a constitutional functionary with independent duty; qualifies as “person aggrieved” to appeal single-judge orders.
- Reserve list expired by operation of Rule 24/21 before any vacancy arose or petitions filed; no right to appointment beyond six months.
- High Court and Division Bench wrongly counted validity from vacancy date and held PSC appeals non-maintainable.
Respondents (Reserve-list candidates)
- Purposive interpretation: six-month period should start when vacancies actually arise or last appointment is made, not forwarding date.
- Administrative practice and repeated government actions (extensions, cancellations) show de facto life of list beyond six months.
- PSC’s conduct in forwarding some candidates after six months demonstrates arbitrary application of rule.
- Delay in issuing cancellation orders by State not attributable to candidates; they invoked remedies promptly.
Factual Background
Between 2013 and 2020, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission conducted recruitment cycles for Junior Legal Officer and Assistant Statistical Officer posts, publishing merit and reserve lists and forwarding select-list names to the State departments. Some selected candidates did not join or had their offers cancelled beyond six months after the original lists were forwarded. Three candidates on the reserve lists petitioned the High Court under Article 226 for appointment; single judges granted mandamus counting six months from the date of vacancy. The Division Bench affirmed, rejecting PSC appeals for lack of State challenge. The Supreme Court held the reserve lists had expired earlier, PSC had locus standi, and all High Court orders were unsustainable.
Statutory Analysis
Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Rules, 1981 (and identical Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Rules, 1978) provides:
- PSC may keep on reserve list names up to 50% of advertised vacancies.
- PSC may recommend reserve-list candidates “within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded” to the appointing authority.
Key points:
- The six-month window is strict and non-extendable except by rule amendment.
- “May recommend” confers discretion but also signals that PSC cannot act beyond that time without violating rule.
- No independent right arises for candidates absent a timely requisition and within the six-month period.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed