Recruitment instructions and waiting-list vacancies: SC held later vacancies had to be filled in line with the selection process.
Recruitment instructions consistent with the governing rules bound the appointing authority, and vacancies arising within six months of the earlier recommendation had to be filled from the waiting list or from candidates already recommended. The appellants were therefore entitled to consideration for appointment against the later vacancies, and the High Court erred in treating the matter as outside those instructions. The writ petition was also not barred by laches because it was filed within the time permitted by the earlier liberty granted by the SC; the delay objection could not defeat relief.
Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by laches due to delay in approaching the High Court. (ii) Whether vacancies arising within six months of the earlier selection were required to be filled from the waiting list or additional candidates recommended by the Commission, entitling the appellants to appointment.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by laches due to delay in approaching the High Court.
Analysis: The earlier order of the Court had permitted the appellants to file a proper writ petition before the High Court on the basis of the earlier selection. The writ petition was thereafter filed within the time permitted by that liberty. In these circumstances, the delay relied upon by the High Court could not justify denial of relief.
Conclusion: The objection based on laches was not sustainable against the appellants.
Issue (ii): Whether vacancies arising within six months of the earlier selection were required to be filled from the waiting list or additional candidates recommended by the Commission, entitling the appellants to appointment.
Analysis: The governing circulars and instructions required that when vacancies arise within six months of the Commission's recommendation, they are to be filled from the waiting list or from candidates already recommended. The existence of further vacancies within that period brought the case within the declared recruitment policy. Administrative instructions consistent with the rules had to be followed by the respondents, and the High Court was wrong in treating the matter as beyond the reach of those instructions.
Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to be considered for appointment against the later vacancies in accordance with the recruitment instructions.
Final Conclusion: The judgment recognises the binding effect of the recruitment instructions governing filling of vacancies arising shortly after selection and holds that the appellants could not be denied consideration on the ground of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: Recruitment instructions that are consistent with the governing rules bind the appointing authority, and vacancies arising within the stipulated period after recommendation must be filled in accordance with the waiting list or additional recommendations; a prompt writ filed pursuant to earlier liberty cannot be rejected on laches.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
