RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AJMER v. YATI JAIN
Reserve Lists: Supreme Court Clarifies Validity Period and Locus Standi in Appointments; Reverses High Court's Orders for Considering Expired List Candidates.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 64
Decision Date: 15-01-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India; Rajasthan Legal State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1981; Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978; Locus Standi; Service Law; Waiting List; Reserve List; Mandamus; Article 14; Article 226; Article 315; Article 320; Article 323; Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949
- Facts: The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) appealed against High Court judgments that directed the state to consider candidates from reserve lists for Junior Legal Officer (JLO) and Assistant Statistical Officer (ASO) positions after vacancies arose due to non-joining of originally selected candidates. The High Court decisions favored the writ petitioners, arguing they applied within six months of the vacancies. The RPSC contended that the reserve lists had expired, and the State did not appeal the Single Judge's decisions.
- Procedural Posture: The RPSC filed three civil appeals in the Supreme Court against the judgments of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which had upheld the Single Judge's orders directing consideration of candidates from the reserve lists. The Division Bench had dismissed the RPSC's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's orders, as the writ petitioners had approached the court within six months of the vacancies arising.
- Issue: 1. Does the RPSC have the locus standi to maintain the writ appeals when the State of Rajasthan did not challenge the Single Judge's directions? 2. What is the nature and extent of the right of a wait-listed candidate to be considered for appointment? 3. Can the High Court issue a mandamus to appoint a candidate from the waiting/reserve list if no requisition is received from the Appointing Authority? 4. Are the impugned judgments and orders of the Division Bench and Single Judges sustainable in law?
- Holding: The Supreme Court held that the RPSC did have the locus standi to appeal. The Court also held that the writ petitions could not have been entertained as the reserve lists had expired, and the Single Judges erred in directing consideration of the candidates. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgments.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the RPSC, as a constitutional body responsible for conducting examinations and recommending candidates, is an aggrieved party when directions are given to appoint candidates not recommended by it. The Court emphasized that a waiting list is not a perennial source of recruitment and that candidates have no indefeasible right to appointment. The validity of a reserve list is governed by recruitment rules, and in this case, Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Rules, 1981, stipulated a six-month period from the date the original list is forwarded. The Court found that the writ petitions were filed after the expiry of this period, and the Single Judges erred in counting the validity from the date a selected candidate declined to join. The Court also cited several precedents to support its view that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules and that negative equality cannot be claimed to perpetuate illegality.
🔒 For Members Only