DR GANPATI vs COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH on 13 October 2026

O R D E R

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Original Application (OA) has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue an order directing the Respondent No. 3 to 5 herein to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of Principal Scientist under post code PS-03 notified under the CSIR-CFTRI Advertisement No. Rec. 119/2019 C vide Annexure A1 issued by Respondent No.4, in the interest of justice and equity and

ii. Pass such other orders as this Honorable Tribunal may deem fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

2. The applicant has sought the aforesaid reliefs on the following grounds: “1. It is respectfully submitted that, the failure of the Respondent No. 3 to 5 in not declaring the name of reserve panel candidate along with successful candidate is violative of law and established rules and procedures the inaction of the 5th respondent in not considering the request of the applicant dated 10th November 2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

2. It is respectfully submitted that, in matters of recruitment the Circulars of the Ministries and the Official Memorandums issued by the Government have statutory force and they have to be followed in word and spirit, in the present case there is clear deviation from the procedure prescribed under the O.M. dated 06.12.2024 as such the same cannot be sustained in law.

3. It is respectfully submitted that, the applicant has met both the essential and desirable qualification as prescribed under the recruitment advertisement, as such his candidature deserves to be considered by adopting the procedure in vogue since the successful candidate did not join within stipulate time to the designated post and the academic excellence, records, research and experience of the applicant matches on par with the successful candidate.

4. It is respectfully submitted that the request made by the applicant to the 5th respondent under the E Mail dated 10th November 2024 is based on an O.M. as such the request having a legal basis deserves to be considered and the respondents are under a legal obligation to consider the same in accordance with law.

5. Viewed from any angle the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the request of the applicant and not declaring the reserve panel candidate list has cast shadow on the genuineness of recruitment process. Viewed from any angle the non-declaration of list of reserve panel candidate, non-recruitment of next deserving candidate to

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja the post of Principal Scientist is per se illegal and cannot be sustained in law.

6. Further it is learnt that there are hectic efforts being made by the respondent No. 3 to 5 to make recommendations to 1st and 2nd respondent for withdrawing the post Principal Scientist under post code PS-03 notified under CSIR-CFTRI Advertisement No Rec. 119/2019 without reasonable cause thereby causing irreparable harm and damages to the applicant’s career as well as future prospects.”

3. The relevant facts, as set out in the synopsis and the pleadings of the applicant, may be summarised as follows:- “ Dates Events

It is respectfully submitted that 4th respondent herein issued an Advertisement notifying recruitment for several posts at CFTRI, the Applicant herein being eligible for the post of Principal Scientist applied and was shortlisted for interview. 20.07.2022 Under the notification dated 20.07.2022, the Applicant was short listed for interview and an invite was mailed to him to attend the interview of 04.03.2023, he attended the interview and did well, however as per the CSIR notification dated 6.12.2024, along with successful candidate reserved panel candidate shall also be considered however, the OM has been not issued reflecting name of reserved candidate for Principal Scientist (PS-03) which raises doubt on the selection process and the Applicant believes that he is deserving candidate and have performed well. However due to non-declaration of reserved candidate list in time, the future prospects of the Applicant is jeopardized and the manner in which declaration of results is conducted appears to be biased and cast shadow on the selection process itself. 10.11.2024 It is respectfully submitted that, as one as Dr.K.H. Vishwanathan who was selected successful candidate did

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja not report for duty, as per the relevant O.M. and the second best candidate is to be considered under such circumstances. The Applicant has made a request to that effect, till to date the same is not considered. For other post for Scientists joining O.M has been issued but for the post PS-03 which the Applicant had applied, without any GOI order or notification, the Director/Controller of Administration of the institute have not taken any steps to fill the vacant steps and have deliberately delayed the process of filling second successful candidate only with an intention to end the Panel Validity which itself.

The applicant respectfully submits as follows,

1. It is respectfully submitted that 4th respondent herein issued an Advertisement notifying recruitment for several posts at CFTRI, the Applicant herein being eligible for the post of Principal Scientist applied and was shortlisted for interview on 31/03/2023.

2. Under the notification dated 20.07.2022, the applicant was short listed for interview and an invite was mailed to him to attend the interview on 31.03.2023, he attended the interview and did well, as per his publications and experiences and academic records he believes that he is one of the deserving candidate and might have been adjudged the next candidate to be selected by the selecting committee.

3. It is respectfully submitted that, as one Dr.K.H.Vishwanathan did not report for duty in-spite of him being selected, as per the relevant O.M. the second best candidate is to be considered under such circumstances, the applicant has made a request to that effect, till to date the same is not considered also, there are too many discrepancies committed by the competitive authority in not following due process of law and also not following the CSRAP Rules of declaring name of reserve panel candidate along with successful candidate. Further the applicant is aggrieved by the fact that the concerned authorities have not declared name of reserved panel candidate and have delayed issuing OM with a malafide intention which has

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja affected the growth prospects of the applicant and non- declaration of results itself is violative of principles of natural justice as such the present Application before this Hon'ble Tribunal.”

4. Upon notice, the respondents entered appearance and filed their reply statement. The applicant thereafter filed a rejoinder. Additional documents were also placed on record by the applicant, and both parties relied upon judicial precedents in support of their respective submissions.

5. The matter was taken up for final hearing on 06.10.2026. Shri Sagar B.B., learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri K. Ananda, learned counsel for the respondents, appeared and were heard. We have carefully examined the pleadings, the documents on record and the rival submissions. The principal factual events relating to the recruitment process are substantially undisputed; the controversy concerns their legal consequences and, in particular, the validity and operation of the selection panel.

6. Pursuant to Advertisement No. Rec. 119/2019 dated 08.01.2020, the applicant applied for the post of Principal Scientist in CFTRI under Post Code PS-03. Four candidates were shortlisted and invited for interview, as reflected in the notification dated 20.07.2022. The interview was held on 31.03.2023, and on the same day the Selection Committee made recommendations for various posts.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

For the unreserved post of Principal Scientist under Post Code PS-03, Dr. K.H. Vishwanathan, bearing Application No. 11360, was selected. The list of selected candidates was notified on 03.01.2024 vide No. FT/15(1137)/2019/E-I (Annexure-R5). The selected candidate was informed of his selection by letter dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure-R6), and his medical examination was held on 22.01.2024. Subsequently, on 05.07.2024, the selected candidate communicated his decision not to join the post of Principal Scientist. The respondents did not thereafter offer appointment to any of the other three candidates who had participated in the interview held on 31.03.2023. The applicant states that, through information obtained under the Right to Information Act and other sources, he came to know that he was the second-ranked candidate in the assessment made by the Selection Committee. He consequently requested the respondents to offer him appointment as the next candidate in order of merit following the selected candidate’s decision not to join. According to him, the respondents neither granted his request nor declared the name of the reserve-panel candidate, thereby prejudicing his career prospects and violating the principles of natural justice. The respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the governing rules do not require a reserve list to be separately published and do not permit appointment from a panel after its prescribed period of validity

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja has expired. Their principal contention is that the Selection Committee made its recommendations on 31.03.2023 and that the panel was valid for one year, i.e. up to 30.03.2024. Since the selected candidate communicated his decision not to join only on 05.07.2024, the panel had already ceased to be operative. Consequently, according to the respondents, the applicant had no enforceable right to appointment as the second-ranked candidate after expiry of the panel.

7. The rival submissions raise the following principal questions for consideration:

(i) Whether the applicable recruitment rules required the respondents to publish a reserve-panel list along with the list of selected candidates;

(ii) Whether the respondents could offer appointment to the applicant after the selected candidate declined the offer on 05.07.2024, when the one-year period prescribed for the panel had expired;

(iii) Whether the delay in completing the appointment formalities, and the subsequent refusal of the selected candidate to join, created an enforceable right in favour of the applicant or required the respondents to relax the prescribed period of validity; and

(iv) Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily or with mala fide intent so as to warrant interference by this Tribunal.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

We shall consider these issues in the light of the applicable rules, the official communications and the judicial precedents relied upon by the parties.

8. The applicant contends in paragraph 5(1) of the OA that the failure of Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to declare the name of the reserve- panel candidate along with that of the selected candidate violates the applicable law and established procedures. He further submits that the failure of Respondent No. 5 to consider his request dated 10.11.2024 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In response, the respondents submit that the Selection Committee made its recommendations for the post of Principal Scientist under Post Code PS-03 on 31.03.2023, whereas the selected candidate communicated his decision not to join only on 05.07.2024, more than one year and three months later. Upon receiving that communication, Respondent No. 3 sought clarification from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as to whether an appointment could still be offered to the next candidate in order of merit. The respondents, therefore, deny any violation of the Constitution or the applicable recruitment procedure. The first question is whether the applicable rules mandated the publication of a separate reserve list. The applicant has placed on record Advertisement No. 119/2019 dated 08.01.2020. However, he has not demonstrated that the advertisement required the publication

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja of a waiting list or prescribed a separate period of operation for such a list. The applicant has also relied upon the relevant provisions of the CSRAP Rules, 2001, effective from 01.01.2001. Rule 6.5.5 provides as follows: “ Selection Committee shall recommend a panel of candidates in order of merit for each post or group of posts as advertised. All relevant papers in respect of the selections shall be forwarded by the board to the concerned appointing authority.”

Rule 6.5.6 provides as follows: “ The panel shall be valid for one year and operated for issuing the offer of appointment to the selected candidates only to the extent of the number of the vacancies advertised. If any of the candidate(s) who have been issued the offer of appointment up to the extent of the notified vacancies does not accept the offer or does not join by the stipulated date, the next candidate on the panel can be offered the post.”

A combined reading of these provisions shows that the Selection Committee is required to recommend a panel of candidates in order of merit. The rules also prescribe a period of one year for the validity of the panel and provide for offering the post to the next candidate on the

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja panel where a candidate who has been issued an offer of appointment does not accept the offer or does not join by the stipulated date. However, the obligation to recommend a panel in order of merit is distinct from an obligation to publish the names of all candidates on that panel along with the name of the selected candidate. The provisions reproduced above do not, by themselves, expressly mandate that a separate reserve list must invariably be published with the initial selection notification. The applicant has not identified any other binding provision which expressly imposes such a requirement in the recruitment in question. The applicant has nevertheless placed certain documents on record to show that other CSIR institutions have, on occasion, published waiting or reserve lists. These include Annexure-A5 dated 15.12.2023 issued by the National Chemical Laboratory, CSIR, which reflects the publication of waiting-list candidates for certain posts. He has also produced a notification dated 19.12.2024 issued by the Institute of Genomics & Integrative Biology, CSIR, in which a waitlisted candidate is shown against a particular category of post, and a notification dated 14.12.2023 issued by the Central Glass & Ceramic Research Institute, CSIR, which also refers to waitlisted candidates. These documents establish that some CSIR institutions have followed the practice of publishing waiting or reserve lists in

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja particular recruitments. They do not, however, establish that such a practice was uniformly followed by every CSIR institution or that CFTRI was bound by a settled and uniform practice to publish a reserve list for every post. Further, Annexure-R5, namely the notification dated 03.01.2024 concerning recruitment to scientific positions advertised under Advertisement No. Rec. 119/2019, shows that one selected candidate was notified against each of the five posts. No second-ranked candidate was separately published against any of those posts. Thus, the material on record indicates that a separate reserve list was not published for the other posts in the same recruitment either. In these circumstances, the applicant has not established that CFTRI departed from a mandatory rule applicable to his post or treated him differently from similarly situated candidates in the same recruitment. Nor has he established that the non-publication of a reserve list was an exceptional measure adopted specifically to prejudice his candidature. Article 14 prohibits arbitrary and discriminatory State action. However, the mere fact that some other CSIR institutions have adopted a particular practice does not, without more, establish a legally enforceable right to insist that the same practice must be

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja followed in every recruitment, particularly when the applicant has not demonstrated a binding rule requiring such uniformity. Accordingly, on the material placed before us, the allegation that the non-publication of a separate reserve list, by itself, violated Article 14 or established mala fides against the applicant is not substantiated.

9. In paragraph 5(2) of the OA, the applicant contends that circulars and Official Memoranda issued by the Ministries and the Government have statutory force and must be followed in letter and spirit. He alleges that the respondents deviated from the procedure prescribed under the OM dated 06.12.2024. The respondents submit that Respondent No. 3 sought clarification from Respondent No. 2 on 09.07.2024. Respondent No. 2 issued a communication dated 06.12.2024 referring to the OMs dated 13.06.2000 and 29.03.2004. According to the respondents, certain ambiguity arose on a combined reading of those OMs and the communication dated 06.12.2024, necessitating a further request for clarification. They deny that the applicant can rely upon the internal correspondence to establish a violation of the applicable instructions. The OM dated 06.12.2024, produced by the applicant as Annexure- A3, reads as follows: “ I am directed to state that the references have been received regarding operation of panel on the recommendations of selection committee under CSRAP

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

Rules, 2001 and to clarify that on combined reading of Rule 6.5.5, Rule 6.5.6 & DoPT OM No. 14017/18/2004-Estt. (RR) dated 29.03.2004, it is clarified that panel recommended by selection committee as per Rule 6.5.5 of CSRAP Rules, 2001 shall be valid for one year from the date on which the selection committee makes recommendations and operated for issuing the offer of selected candidates only to the extent of the number of the vacancies advertised. The panel stands operated once the corollary action for filling of the posts is initiated for completing the pre-appointment formalities i.c. when letter is issued to the recommended candidates for medical examination and also to concerned authorities for verification of character and antecedents.

2. I am further directed to clarify that on combined reading of Rule 6.5.6 & DOPT OM No.41019/18/97-Estt(B) dated 13.06.2000, if any of the candidate(s) who have been issued the offer of appointment up to the extent of the notified vacancies docs not accept the offer or does not join by the stipulated date, the next candidate on the reserve panel can be offered the post. However, the date taken for counting of one year for validity as per Rule 6.5.6 of CSRAP Rules, 2001 is to be taken as the date for operation of reserve panel in terms of DoPT OM dated 13.06.2000.

3. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority, CSIR.”

The above communication clarifies the operation of panels recommended by Selection Committees under the CSRAP Rules, 2001. It reiterates that the panel is valid for one year from the date on which the Selection Committee makes its recommendations and that offers of appointment are to be issued only to the extent of the advertised vacancies. It also clarifies that, where a selected candidate

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja does not accept the offer or fails to join by the stipulated date, the next candidate on the reserve panel may be offered the post, subject to the prescribed period of validity. The critical distinction is between the contingency that permits consideration of the next candidate and the period during which that contingency can be acted upon. The fact that a selected candidate declines an offer or fails to join may give rise to a vacancy for consideration under Rule 6.5.6; it does not, by itself, extend the period of validity of the panel beyond the period prescribed by the rule. The applicant has not demonstrated how the respondents departed from the instructions contained in the OM dated 06.12.2024. On the contrary, the clarification expressly refers to the one-year period commencing from the date of the Selection Committee’s recommendations. That date, in the present case, is 31.03.2023. The internal correspondence between CFTRI and the higher authorities is also relevant to the allegation of mala fides. It indicates that, after the selected candidate declined to join, the local administration sought clarification from the competent authorities regarding the possibility of offering the post to the next candidate. This conduct does not, by itself, establish that the respondents were acting with an intention to deprive the applicant of appointment.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

Rather, the correspondence shows that the question was examined at the institutional and central levels. It is, therefore, necessary to consider whether the delay in completing the recruitment formalities can alter the date from which the panel’s validity must be computed.

10. The applicant has himself placed on record Annexure-A9, setting out a chronological account of the events relating to Post Code PS-03 (Principal Scientist – Lateral Entry). The relevant details, as furnished by the applicant, are reproduced below:

Sl. No. Date of Events Reference – Reply statement Remarks

Date of interview/Selection of candidates by selection Committee 31/03/2023 (Para 5, page 2) 31/03/2023 to 30/03/2024 is considered as validity period of selection Committee as per R3 & R5

Date of recommendations of the selection committee 31/03/2023 (Para 5, Page 2) As per respondent objection file no evidence furnished

Forwarded selection committee recommendations to CSIR-RAB for Endorsement 02/05/2023 (Para 5, Page

R3 and R5 took 01 month of time to forward the selection committee recommendation to CSIR-RAB

Date of communication of RAB Endorsement to CFTRI 06/12/2023 (Para 6 Page 28) CSIR-RAB took 7 months of time to communicate the endorsement (in total 9 months' time)

Date of declaration of list of selected candidates on the website of CFTRI 03/01/2024 (Para 7, Page

R3 took 01 more month of time to declare the results (in total 10 months of time from the date of selection)

Date of intimation to the selected candidates to appear for Medical Exam 03/01/2024 (Para 7, Page

10 months of time from the date of selection

Date of medical examination to the 23/01/2024 (Para 7, Page Provisional Appointment order was issued to the

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja selected candidates selected candidate (almost after 11 months from the date of selection)

The candidate was asked not to report till further clearance from CSIR Headquarters (related to Department of Expenditure notice) (Para 9) Provisional appointment order issued on 23/01/2024 and asked not to report on 31/01/2024

Date of Clearance received from CSIR Headquarters 03/05/2024 (Para10, Page

DOE took 3 months of time (in overall, around 1 year 2 months)

Date of communication to the selected candidate to report for duty (referring earlier date of issue of appointment order) 07/05/2024 (Para 10, Page

Almost, after 1 year and 2 months of the selection committee recommendations.

Extension of time given to the selected candidate to report for duty On or before 15/07/2024 (Para10 Page

Extension was given as a special case

Date of selected candidate communication of denial of Joining 05/07/2024 (page 61) After 2 months of Extension

The chronology shows that the Selection Committee interviewed the candidates and made its recommendations on 31.03.2023. The recommendations were forwarded to CSIR-RAB for endorsement on 02.05.2023, and the endorsement was communicated to CFTRI on 06.12.2023. The list of selected candidates was published on the CFTRI website on 03.01.2024, and the selected candidates were informed on the same date to undergo medical examination. The medical examination was held on 23.01.2024, and a provisional appointment order was issued to the selected candidate.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

Thereafter, on 31.01.2024, the selected candidate was asked not to report for duty pending further clearance from CSIR Headquarters in connection with an issue arising from a Department of Expenditure notice. The requisite clearance was received on 03.05.2024, and the selected candidate was asked to report for duty on 07.05.2024. An extension was subsequently granted, permitting him to report on or before 15.07.2024. However, on 05.07.2024, the selected candidate communicated his decision not to join. The applicant emphasises that the above chronology reveals considerable delay at different stages of the recruitment process. He contends that the respondents should not be permitted to rely upon the expiry of the panel when the delay in completing the process was attributable to the authorities themselves. According to him, the panel should be treated as having remained operative until the selected candidate declined the offer on 05.07.2024, and the next candidate should then have been considered. This contention raises a question of considerable importance: whether delay in completing appointment formalities can, in the absence of a specific enabling provision, extend the validity of a panel beyond the period expressly prescribed by the applicable rules. The chronology undoubtedly shows that the recruitment process took considerable time. It also shows that the selected candidate was

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja asked to await further clearance from CSIR Headquarters and that the respondents were required to address the issue arising from the Department of Expenditure notice before permitting him to report for duty. The record, therefore, indicates that the process involved institutional and administrative consultations beyond the immediate control of CFTRI. The question before us, however, is not whether the process could have been completed more expeditiously. It is whether the delay, in the circumstances of this case, legally extended the panel’s validity or conferred upon the applicant an enforceable right to appointment after that validity had expired. The applicable rule and the clarification dated 06.12.2024 identify the date of the Selection Committee’s recommendation as the starting point for computing the one-year period. The subsequent stages of endorsement, publication of results, medical examination, clearance and communication with the selected candidate do not alter that expressly prescribed starting point. The fact that the selected candidate declined the offer only on 05.07.2024 cannot, by itself, shift the commencement of the panel’s validity from 31.03.2023 to 05.07.2024. Such a construction would effectively substitute a new period of validity for the one prescribed under Rule 6.5.6 and the applicable instructions.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

This does not mean that administrative delay is irrelevant in every recruitment dispute. If delay were shown to have resulted from mala fides, deliberate discrimination, a breach of a binding rule or an arbitrary exercise of power, the legal consequences would require separate consideration. In the present case, however, the applicant must establish more than the passage of time. He must demonstrate a legal basis for extending the panel’s validity or circumstances warranting judicial interference with the respondents’ decision. We have examined the correspondence between CSIR and CFTRI in this context. The record indicates that the appointment process required action at the central level and that the respondents sought clarification concerning the effect of the Department of Expenditure’s directions and the possibility of making a further offer. We do not find sufficient material to conclude that the delay was deliberately engineered to defeat the applicant’s candidature. It is also a settled principle that selection does not invariably create an indefeasible right to appointment. Even a selected candidate cannot insist upon appointment irrespective of the governing rules and the requirements of the institution. A candidate whose name is placed below the selected candidate cannot claim a greater right merely because the selected candidate subsequently declines the offer,

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja particularly where the governing rules prescribe a limited period for operation of the panel. We are, therefore, unable to accept the applicant’s contention that the one-year period should be computed from 05.07.2024, the date on which Dr. K.H. Vishwanathan declined to join. The applicable rule fixes the commencement of validity at the date of the Selection Committee’s recommendation, namely, 31.03.2023. The panel was consequently valid for the prescribed one-year period, ending on 30.03.2024, and the subsequent refusal to join did not, by itself, revive or extend it.

11. The applicant has also relied upon the rules applicable to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), a copy of which is available at page 206 of the OA. Our attention has been drawn to the provision concerning the operation of the reserve list, which states: “ It has also been decided that a Reserve List will be operated up to 18 months from the date of approval of the panel by the Commission under normal circumstances, which could be extended up to 2 years in exceptional cases.” The above provision relates to the reserve list maintained under the UPSC’s own recruitment framework. The selection in the present case was not conducted by the UPSC, but under the applicable CSIR

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja recruitment framework. The validity of the panel must, therefore, be determined with reference to the rules governing this recruitment. The applicant cannot derive a right to an extended period of validity merely by relying upon the longer period prescribed under a different recruitment system. Different recruiting authorities may prescribe different periods of validity, having regard to their respective recruitment procedures and governing rules. In the present case, the relevant DoPT OM dated 29.03.2004 provides, inter alia, as follows: “ That it has therefore, been decided that the period of validity of the panels recommended by the Screening Committees for appointments to posts in Autonomous/Statutory organizations may be restricted to a ceiling of one year. The date of commencement of validity of the Panel will be the date on which the Selection Committee makes the recommendation.”

The above instruction is consistent with Rule 6.5.6 of the CSRAP Rules, 2001, which prescribes a one-year validity period for the panel. The applicant has also referred to the clarification communicated by letter dated 16.04.2025, which states that “validity of panel should be considered from the date on which the selection committee makes recommendations and not from the date of rejection / declining of the appointment offer.”

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

The instructions relied upon by the applicant thus do not support his contention that the panel’s validity should commence afresh from the date on which the selected candidate declines the offer. On the contrary, they confirm that the relevant date is the date of the Selection Committee’s recommendation. The applicant’s reliance on the UPSC provision cannot override the specific rule applicable to CSIR. We find no basis to extend the validity of the panel beyond the prescribed period merely because a different recruiting authority has adopted a longer period for its reserve lists.

12. The applicant’s grounds in paragraphs 5(3) to 5(6) are interrelated and may conveniently be considered together. He contends that he possesses the essential and desirable qualifications prescribed in the advertisement and that his academic achievements, research publications, experience and other credentials are comparable to those of the selected candidate. He further submits that, since the selected candidate did not ultimately join, his candidature ought to have been considered in accordance with the applicable instructions. The respondents do not dispute that the applicant fulfilled the prescribed essential and desirable qualifications or that he participated in the interview. For the purpose of considering the present OA, we

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja have also taken into account his assertion, supported by the material placed on record, that he was the second-ranked candidate. The central issue, however, is not whether the applicant was qualified or whether his credentials were meritorious. It is whether the governing recruitment rules permitted his candidature to be considered for appointment after the prescribed period of validity of the panel had expired. Eligibility for a post, selection for consideration, placement in order of merit and entitlement to appointment are distinct matters. Fulfilment of the prescribed qualifications makes a candidate eligible to participate in the selection process. Placement in a merit panel may entitle the candidate to consideration in accordance with the applicable rules and within the period for which the panel remains operative. Neither circumstance, by itself, creates an unconditional right to appointment. Rule 6.5.6 prescribes a one-year period of validity for the panel. The corresponding instructions identify the date of the Selection Committee’s recommendation as the date from which the period is to be calculated. The applicant has not established any provision under which the panel could be operated beyond that period merely because the selected candidate subsequently declined to join.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

The respondents have also pointed out that CSIR and its constituent scientific institutions are subject to changes in organisational requirements and scientific priorities. Scientific and technological institutions may need to review their manpower requirements as their research programmes, technological capabilities and institutional structures evolve. This is a relevant consideration in understanding why recruitment panels are ordinarily subject to a defined period of validity. We do not, however, consider it necessary to rest our decision on a general proposition that scientific requirements change every day or that a candidate necessarily becomes unsuitable merely because a year has elapsed. The decisive consideration here is the express rule governing the validity of the panel. The Tribunal cannot substitute its own view for that rule or extend the panel’s validity in the absence of a lawful basis for doing so. Consequently, even accepting that the applicant was qualified and was placed second in order of merit, those circumstances do not confer upon him a right to appointment after the panel ceased to be operative. The respondents were required to act in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules, and the applicant has not established that those rules authorised an appointment from the panel after expiry of its validity.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

13. The applicant submits that his request to Respondent No. 5 by email dated 10.11.2024 was founded upon an OM and that the respondents were legally obliged to consider the request in accordance with law. The request was made after the Selection Committee’s recommendation dated 31.03.2023 had completed the prescribed one- year period of validity. As discussed above, the applicable rules and the clarification dated 06.12.2024 do not provide that the period of validity commences afresh when the selected candidate declines the offer. The fact that the applicant invoked an OM in support of his request did not, by itself, create an obligation to grant the relief sought. The request had to be examined in the light of the applicable rules and the facts prevailing at the relevant time. The record shows that the respondents sought clarification from the competent authorities regarding the possibility of making a further offer. The applicant has not demonstrated that the respondents were legally empowered or required to make an appointment from the expired panel, or that their failure to do so violated a binding instruction. Accordingly, the applicant’s reliance on his request dated 10.11.2024 does not establish an enforceable right to appointment.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

14. The applicant further contends that the respondents’ failure to consider his request and their failure to publish a reserve-panel list cast a shadow on the genuineness of the recruitment process. He submits that non-publication of the reserve list and failure to appoint the next candidate in order of merit are illegal. These submissions involve two related but distinct questions: first, whether the respondents were required to publish a separate reserve list; and second, whether they were required to offer appointment to the applicant after the selected candidate declined to join. As already discussed, the applicant has not established a mandatory provision requiring the publication of a separate reserve list in every recruitment conducted by CFTRI. The documents relating to other CSIR institutions show that reserve lists have been published in certain recruitments, but they do not establish that the same practice was uniformly followed in every institution or that CFTRI was bound to publish such a list for the recruitment in question. The material before us also indicates that CFTRI did not publish a separate reserve list against any of the other posts covered by the same recruitment notification. The applicant has not shown that he was treated differently from the candidates for those posts or that the non-publication of a reserve list was intended to prejudice him alone.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

As regards the failure to offer appointment to the applicant, the respondents’ explanation is that the selected candidate declined to join only on 05.07.2024, after the panel’s one-year validity had expired. The correspondence on record shows that the respondents examined whether a further offer could be made and sought clarification from the competent authorities. The fact that the respondents could not ultimately offer appointment to the applicant does not, without more, establish that the process was manipulated or that the decision was taken with an improper motive. It is possible that a separately published reserve list would have made the position of the candidates more transparent and would have provided greater clarity regarding the order of merit. However, transparency as a desirable administrative practice must be distinguished from a mandatory legal obligation. In the absence of a binding provision requiring publication of the reserve list, its non- publication cannot, on the facts of this case alone, be treated as sufficient proof of illegality or mala fides. We have examined the record and do not find material establishing that the respondents acted with an intention to prejudice the applicant or that the non-publication of a reserve list was a device adopted to defeat his claim. The applicant’s contention on this ground,

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja therefore, does not warrant interference with the respondents’ decision.

15. The applicant further alleges that Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were making efforts to recommend to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the withdrawal of the post of Principal Scientist under Post Code PS-03, notified under CSIR-CFTRI Advertisement No. Rec. 119/2019, without reasonable cause, thereby causing irreparable harm to his career and future prospects. The respondents submit that restructuring is a continuing process in scientific organisations and that changes in institutional requirements may necessitate upgradation, downgradation, creation or abolition of posts. They contend that such measures are not directed against the applicant. We have considered this allegation in the light of the correspondence on record. The material before us does not establish that any proposal concerning restructuring or withdrawal of the post was initiated with the object of prejudicing the applicant’s candidature. Nor does it establish that the respondents’ actions were motivated by ill-will towards him. More importantly, the applicant’s claim to appointment must be examined with reference to the governing recruitment rules and the status of the panel when the selected candidate declined to join. As the

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja panel’s prescribed period of validity had already expired, the applicant has not established a right to appointment from that panel. The allegation concerning a possible proposal to withdraw the post does not, in the absence of supporting evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides, alter that legal position. We, therefore, find no sufficient ground for interference on this count.

16. The applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Sat Pal, in Civil Appeal Nos. 938-939 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 31591- 31592 of 2012), decided on 05.02.2013 and reported in 2013 11 SCC

737. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:- “In view of the factual and legal position discussed by us hereinabove, we are of the view, that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be just and appropriate to direct the appellants to appoint the respondent Sat Pal against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).”

The above direction was issued having regard to the particular facts and legal position considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case. The decision to direct appointment was case-specific and does not establish an unqualified rule that every candidate placed

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja below the selected candidate must be appointed whenever the selected candidate declines to join. The applicability of a precedent depends upon the legal principles laid down and their application to the facts of the case under consideration. In the present case, the validity of the panel is governed by Rule 6.5.6 of the CSRAP Rules, 2001, which prescribes a period of one year. The applicant has not demonstrated that the governing rules in the present recruitment permit operation of the panel beyond that period or that the factual and legal circumstances warrant a similar direction for appointment. Accordingly, the decision in State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Sat Pal does not advance the applicant’s case to the extent necessary to grant the relief sought.

17. The respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs. Yati Jain & others, reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 52, decided on 15.01.2026. The respondents have drawn our attention to paragraphs 81 to 86, which consider the nature of a waiting list and the extent of the rights of a waitlisted candidate. The relevant extracts reproduced before us are as follows:- “81. What is a waiting list? What is the extent of right that could be claimed by a wait-listed candidate for securing an appointment? For answering this question, one may

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja immediately read the decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat32. Relevant extracts from it read as follows:

8. Coming to the next issue, the first question is what is a waiting list?; can it be treated as a source of recruitment from which candidates may be drawn as and when necessary?; and lastly how long can it operate? These are some important questions which do arise as a result of direction issued by the High Court. A waiting list prepared in service matters by the competent authority is a list of 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit are placed below the last selected candidate. How it should operate and what is its nature may be governed by the rules. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990 and the competent authority prepares a waiting list then it is in respect of those 10 seats only for which selection or competition was held.

Reason for it is that whenever selection is held, except where it is for single post, it is normally held by taking into account not only the number of vacancies existing on the date when advertisement is issued or applications are invited but even those which are likely to arise in future within one year or so due to retirement etc. It is more so where selections are held regularly by the Commission. Such lists are prepared either under the rules or even otherwise mainly to ensure that the working in the office does not suffer if the selected candidates do not join for one or the other reason or the next selection or examination is not held soon. A candidate in the waiting list in the order of merit has a right to claim that he may be appointed if one or the other selected candidate does not join. But

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

once the selected candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation etc. or for any other reason within the period the list is to operate under the rules or within reasonable period where no specific period is provided then candidate from the waiting list has no right to claim appointment to any future vacancy which may arise unless the selection was held for it. He has no vested right except to the limited extent, indicated above, or when the appointing authority acts arbitrarily and makes appointment from the waiting list by picking and choosing for extraneous reasons.

9. A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

(emphasis ours)

82. Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. (supra) was cited with approval in Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab33. This Court observed, and we say rightly, that waiting lists are not perennial sources of recruitment and that candidates on the waiting list have no vested right to be appointed except to the limited extent that when a candidate selected does not join and the waiting list is still operative.

83. In Rakhi Roy v. High Court of Delhi34, once again this Court reiterated that a waiting list cannot be used as a reservoir to fill up vacancies which come into existence after issuance of notification / advertisement.

84. The rationale behind preparing fresh select lists and not operating stale lists was considered by this Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Virendra Kumar Sharma35. While allowing the appeal carried by the employer from the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, this Court had this to say:

5. Any scheme for selection will depend upon the terms on which selections are made. In the present case, there is a scheme as provided in the circular dated 9- 12-1968 and that circular also provided for the panel to be valid/current for a particular period namely one year. After that period, the list would lapse and fresh panel has to be prepared. If that is the scheme, none of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent would be of any assistance. The High Court is also not justified in relying upon the decision in Shivsingh case [(1988) 1 MPWN 24] inasmuch as the scheme of appointment was entirely different. Moreover the validity/currency of panel was for a particular period; that is a salutary principle, behind that Rule so that after the selections are made and appointments to be made may take long time, it is possible that new candidates may have become available who are better or more qualified than those

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja selected, and if they are appointed it would be in the best interests of the institution. Hence we do not think there was any justification for the High Court to have interfered in the matter and directed appointment of the respondent. The order made (1997) 8 SCC 488 (2010) 2 SCC 637 (2002) 9 SCC 650 by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. (emphasis ours)

85. A similar case such as the present is the one decided by this Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Surendra Kumar36. It would be useful to reproduce below what was ruled by this Court:

12. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the order dated 18-5-2018 passed by the High Court and other material placed on record. For the purpose of operating wait-list, the Government of Uttar Pradesh has issued instructions from time to time. It is clear from the various government orders that wait-list period is valid only for a period of one year. Though requisition is made for making selection for 178 number of posts, but the appellant Commission, after declaring results of the examination, has made initial recommendation for substantive number of posts i.e. 156 posts vide letter dated 12-8-2010. It appears that the said list is prepared by including candidates who have submitted all the requisite documents within the period prescribed. Further recommendations were also made, but there is no reason for not computing the period of one year from 12-8-2010. When recommendations were made for substantive number of posts on 12-8- 2010, we are of the view that period of one year for operating wait-list is to be computed from 12- 8-2010 but not from the last recommendation made for one post, vide letter dated 28-8-2012. The reason for

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja restricting 156 names in the initial recommendation vide letter dated 12-8-2010, is explained in Para 11 of the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court. (emphasis ours)

86. The key aspects of a waiting list, in relation to service law disputes, that can be deduced from the aforesaid decisions is this:

(i) a waiting list is normally prepared after the select/merit list is drawn;

(ii) it would include candidates who have qualified the recruitment examination but are not so meritorious such that they can be immediately appointed on the number of vacancies advertised;

iii) such list would operate like a merit-based queue for vacancies that remain unfilled after offers of appointment given to the candidates in the select/merit list are not accepted;

(iv) a waiting list has a limited validity period;

(v) validity period of a waiting list depends on the recruitment rules and should no such period be mentioned, it can bona fide be operated till the next advertisement is issued without, however, violating provisions in such rules, if any, requiring recruitment process to be initiated either semi-annually or annually; and

(vi) an opportunity to a candidate in the waiting list for securing appointment arises only when vacancies remain unfilled after the process of appointing candidates from the select/merit list is over and hence, it is regarded as a procedural outcome which is part of a structured process rather than a fortuitous circumstance.”

The above extracts reiterate that the nature and operation of a waiting list are governed by the applicable recruitment rules and that

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja such a list cannot ordinarily be treated as a perpetual source of recruitment. A candidate placed on a waiting list may claim consideration where a selected candidate does not join, but that claim remains subject to the period during which the waiting list is valid and operative. The judgment further recognises that, where the rules prescribe a specific period of validity, that period must be respected. The rationale is that recruitment must remain open to candidates who may become eligible in subsequent selection processes and that an earlier panel cannot be kept alive indefinitely. In the present case, Rule 6.5.6 of the CSRAP Rules, 2001 expressly prescribes a one-year period of validity. The date of the Selection Committee’s recommendation is 31.03.2023. Consequently, the relevant period ended on 30.03.2024. The selected candidate declined to join only on 05.07.2024, after expiry of that period. The fact that a selected candidate did not join is, therefore, not sufficient in itself to sustain the applicant’s claim. The contingency contemplated by the rules must arise while the panel remains operative. The applicant has not established any provision under which the subsequent refusal to join revives an expired panel. The applicant’s reliance on State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Sat Pal (supra) must be considered in this context. That judgment

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja directed appointment on the particular facts and legal position before the Court. It does not displace the governing rule in the present case, which expressly limits the validity of the panel to one year. The decision in Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs. Yati Jain & others is directly relevant to the distinction between the occurrence of a vacancy and the continued legal availability of a panel from which appointment may be made. We accordingly find that the principles stated in Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs. Yati Jain & others support the respondents’ contention that the panel could not be operated beyond the prescribed period merely because the selected candidate subsequently declined the offer.

18. The respondents have also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & others vs. Santhosh Kumar C, in SLP(C) No. 35896/2025, decided on 23.03.2026. They have specifically drawn our attention to paragraph 17, which reads as follows: “17. The observation of the High Court that the principle that inclusion in the select list does not confer a right to appointment would not apply because the Government had already decided to appoint, also does not commend acceptance. The decision of the Government to fill the notified vacancies cannot be equated with creation of a right in favour of every candidate below the selected candidate to claim automatic substitution in the event of

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

non-joining. The right, if any, must arise from the Rules themselves. In the absence of any provision in the 1997 Rules enabling such substitution, the respondent could not claim appointment merely because one selected candidate did not complete the pre- appointment process.”

The principle stated in the above extract is that a decision to fill notified vacancies does not, by itself, confer an automatic right of substitution upon every candidate below the selected candidate. The right to such substitution must be traceable to the governing rules. In the present case, Rule 6.5.6 does contemplate offering the post to the next candidate on the panel where the selected candidate does not accept the offer or does not join by the stipulated date. However, that provision must be read as a whole, including the express limitation that the panel remains valid for one year. The provision cannot be interpreted to permit appointment from the panel indefinitely or after its prescribed validity has expired. The above judgment, therefore, reinforces the proposition that a candidate’s claim to appointment must be founded on the applicable rules and cannot be based solely on the fact that the selected candidate did not join.

19. The applicant has also filed, through a memo dated 05.09.2026, a document issued by CSIR-Central Road Research Institute dated 15.12.2017, which states, inter alia:-

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

“ Further, the wait list/reserve panel of the candidates may be seen at Annexure-1. The wait list shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issue of this notification. In case, any of the selected candidate(s) does not accept the offer/does not join /resigns / vacates the post due to any reason, during the validity period of the Wait list, the next candidate from the wait list/reserve panel shall be offered the post, in the order of merit and also taking into account his Category (i.e. SC/OBC/Gen) and his order of preference of post code.”

This document shows that the Central Road Research Institute published a waitlist/reserve panel and expressly prescribed a one-year period of validity for it. It further provides that the next candidate may be offered the post if a selected candidate does not accept the offer, does not join, resigns or vacates the post during the validity period of the waitlist. The document does not establish that a reserve list must necessarily be published in every recruitment conducted by every CSIR institution. More importantly, it does not support the proposition that a panel can be operated after its prescribed period of validity has expired. On the contrary, it expressly links the possibility of offering appointment to the next candidate with the continued validity of the waitlist.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

In the present case, the applicable CSRAP Rules prescribe a one- year validity period, which had expired before the selected candidate communicated his decision not to join. The document relied upon by the applicant, therefore, does not establish an entitlement to appointment after expiry of the panel’s validity.

20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, 1991 AIR 1612, decided on 30.04.1991. The principle laid down in that case is that inclusion in a select or merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. Even where vacancies have been notified and candidates have been found suitable, the successful candidates do not, merely by virtue of their selection, acquire an indefeasible right to appointment. The State is not ordinarily under a legal obligation to fill every notified vacancy, unless the applicable rules or other binding legal requirements provide otherwise. At the same time, the decision not to fill vacancies cannot be arbitrary, and the State must act bona fide and for appropriate reasons. Where appointments are made, comparative merit must be respected. The principle is relevant to the present dispute. The applicant’s placement as the second-ranked candidate does not, by itself, create an indefeasible right to appointment. His claim must be examined in

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja accordance with the CSRAP Rules, 2001, which prescribe the period during which the panel may be operated. The applicant has not established that the respondents were under a legal obligation to appoint him after expiry of that period. Nor has he established that the respondents acted arbitrarily or with a discriminatory motive in refusing to make an appointment from the expired panel.

21. In State of Orissa & Another vs. Rajkishore Nanda & others, 2010 (6) SCC 777, decided on 03.06.2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held, inter alia, that a select list cannot be treated as a reservoir from which candidates may be appointed whenever vacancies subsequently arise. Appointments must conform to the notified vacancies and the applicable statutory rules. The principle reinforces the requirement that appointments must be made within the framework of the governing recruitment scheme. A select list cannot be treated as an independent or continuing source of recruitment once the period for which it was prepared has expired. In the present case, the panel was valid for one year from 31.03.2023. The applicant has not demonstrated any provision permitting the panel to remain operative beyond 30.03.2024. The fact that the selected candidate declined the offer on 05.07.2024 cannot, by itself, extend the panel’s validity.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

22. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.S. Balu and Another vs. State of Kerala and others, 2009 (2) SCC 479, decided on 13.01.2009. The principle emerging from that judgment is that mere inclusion in a select or rank list does not create an enforceable right to appointment. The State, as employer, may decide whether to fill vacancies, subject to the applicable rules and the requirement that its action must not be arbitrary or discriminatory. A writ of mandamus cannot ordinarily be issued merely because a candidate’s name appears in a select list. The candidate must establish a corresponding legal duty on the part of the authority and a failure to discharge that duty, or demonstrate that the authority has acted arbitrarily or discriminatorily. In the present case, the respondents’ decision has to be assessed in the light of the prescribed one-year validity period, the correspondence concerning the appointment process and the date on which the selected candidate declined to join. The record indicates that the appointment process involved consideration and clearance at the CSIR headquarters level, including issues arising from the Department of Expenditure notice. The process took considerable time, and the selected candidate communicated his decision not to join only after the panel’s prescribed period of validity had expired.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

We have not found sufficient material to conclude that the respondents deliberately delayed the process to deprive the applicant of an opportunity or that their decision was motivated by mala fides. Equally, we find no provision in the applicable rules that would permit us to direct the respondents to operate the panel beyond its prescribed period of validity. The applicant’s qualifications and comparative position in the selection process have been taken into account. However, those factors do not dispense with the requirement to comply with the governing recruitment rules. The applicant has, therefore, not established the legal duty necessary to sustain a direction for appointment.

23. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. B. Valluvan, (2006) 8 SCC 686, decided on 19.10.2006. The decision is relevant to the proposition that recruitment must conform to the applicable statutory framework and that the life of a panel is governed by the rules applicable to the recruitment. In the present case, Rule 6.5.6 of the CSRAP Rules, 2001 expressly prescribes the period of validity of the panel. The applicant has not established that the rule was inapplicable to the recruitment in question or that any other binding provision permitted its extension in the circumstances of this case.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

The prescribed period cannot be disregarded merely because the selected candidate declined the offer after its expiry. The applicant’s claim must, therefore, be considered within the limits of the governing recruitment framework.

24. The decision in Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs. Yati Jain & others (supra) also addresses the rights of waitlisted candidates seeking appointment against vacancies arising because selected candidates did not join or their appointments were subsequently cancelled. The judgment reiterates that a waitlisted candidate does not possess a vested or indefeasible right to appointment, that a reserve or waiting list is not an independent source of recruitment, and that its operation is governed by the applicable rules and prescribed period of validity. The principles stated in that judgment are consistent with the express terms of Rule 6.5.6 of the CSRAP Rules, 2001. The applicant’s contention that the period should be computed from the date on which the selected candidate declined the offer cannot be reconciled with the rule and the clarification dated 06.12.2024, both of which identify the date of the Selection Committee’s recommendation as the starting point.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

We, therefore, find no legal basis to direct the respondents to treat the panel as having remained operative beyond its prescribed period.

25. The applicant has also contended during the course of arguments that the CSIR Rules confer a power to relax the applicable provisions and that the respondents could have exercised such power to extend the validity of the panel in his case. The respondents have submitted that the power of relaxation is vested in the full Board of CSIR and is ordinarily exercised in relation to policy matters, rather than in individual cases arising in constituent institutions. The mere existence of a power to relax a rule does not, by itself, confer upon every candidate a right to demand its exercise in his favour. The availability, scope and exercise of such a power must be examined in the light of the relevant provision and the circumstances of the particular case. Any exercise of the power must also conform to the governing recruitment framework and the requirement of non- arbitrariness. In the present case, the applicant has not established that the applicable rules required the competent authority to relax the one-year validity period in his favour. Nor has he demonstrated that similarly situated candidates were granted such relaxation while his request was

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja rejected, or that the refusal to extend the panel was based on an extraneous consideration. The fact that the selected candidate declined to join after the panel’s validity had expired does not, by itself, create an obligation upon the competent authority to exercise a power of relaxation. In the absence of a demonstrated legal entitlement or evidence of arbitrary or discriminatory exercise of power, this Tribunal cannot direct the respondents to extend the validity of the panel merely to enable the applicant to be considered for appointment. We, therefore, find no sufficient basis to hold that the respondents were legally bound to exercise the power of relaxation in the applicant’s favour.

26. On an overall consideration of the pleadings, the documents on record and the rival submissions, the following position emerges:

(i) The Selection Committee made its recommendations for the post of Principal Scientist under Post Code PS-03 on 31.03.2023.

(ii) Rule 6.5.6 of the CSRAP Rules, 2001 prescribes a validity period of one year for the panel. The OM dated 06.12.2024 and the clarification referred to by the parties confirm that the period is to be computed from the date of the Selection Committee’s recommendation.

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja

(iii) The panel’s prescribed period of validity expired on 30.03.2024. The selected candidate communicated his decision not to join only on 05.07.2024.

(iv) The applicant has not established any provision under which the subsequent refusal of the selected candidate to join revived the expired panel or extended its validity.

(v) The documents produced by the applicant show that certain other CSIR institutions have published reserve or waiting lists. However, the applicant has not established that the publication of a separate reserve list was mandatory in the present recruitment or that CFTRI departed from a binding rule applicable to the post in question.

(vi) The record shows that the respondents sought clarification from the competent authorities regarding the possibility of making a further offer of appointment. Although the process took considerable time, the material before us does not establish that the delay was deliberately engineered to prejudice the applicant or that the decision not to offer him appointment was motivated by mala fides.

(vii) The applicant’s qualifications and his asserted position as the second-ranked candidate do not, by themselves, confer an indefeasible right to appointment after expiry of the panel’s validity.

(viii) The applicant has not established that the respondents acted in violation of a binding recruitment rule, exercised their discretion

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja arbitrarily or discriminatorily, or were legally obliged to relax the prescribed period of validity in his favour. The applicant’s grievance regarding the delay in the recruitment process is understandable. The chronology shows that the process involved several stages of endorsement, clearance and communication, and that the selected candidate ultimately declined to join only after the panel’s validity had expired. Nevertheless, the existence of administrative delay does not automatically confer a right to appointment from an expired panel. Such a right must be established under the applicable rules or arise from circumstances demonstrating legally impermissible arbitrariness or discrimination. We do not find those circumstances established in the present case.

27. We would, however, observe that publication of the names of candidates placed in the reserve panel, wherever permissible under the applicable recruitment framework, would promote transparency and provide greater clarity to candidates regarding their relative position and the operation of the selection process. The practice followed by certain other CSIR institutions, as evidenced by the documents placed on record, may appropriately be considered by CFTRI while undertaking future recruitments. This observation is intended to encourage transparency and consistency in administrative practice. It does not amount to a finding

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja that CFTRI violated a mandatory provision by not publishing a reserve list in the present recruitment, nor does it create a right in the applicant to appointment from the expired panel.

28. For the reasons discussed above, we find that the applicant has not made out a case for grant of the reliefs sought in the OA. The respondents’ decision not to offer appointment to the applicant after expiry of the prescribed period of validity of the panel does not warrant interference on the grounds urged before us.

29. Accordingly, we pass the following orders:-

ORDER

OA is dismissed. All associated MA(s), if any pending, shall be treated as disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/- (DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/ms/

Bangalore

Mikasha Suneja