Supreme Court Holds Reserve Lists Are Time‑Bound, Allows PSC’s Appeals and Sets Aside High Court Directions

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih heard appeals by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) challenging Division Bench orders of the Rajasthan High Court which had upheld Single Judge directions directing consideration or appointment of candidates from reserve/waiting lists in three separate recruitment cycles.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned Division Bench and Single Judge orders and held that the RPSC was a “person aggrieved” with locus standi to prosecute the intra‑court appeals. The Court emphasised that reserve or waiting lists are contingent, time‑limited mechanisms and a wait‑listed candidate had no indefeasible right to appointment once the statutory period for operation of the list expired. The Court explained that a Public Service Commission may exercise discretion to prepare and to forward reserve names but such discretion must be supported by valid reasons and could not be overridden where the governing rules fixed a limited life of the list. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “a candidate included in a select/merit list does not have an indefeasible right of appointment even if a vacancy exists.” The judgment further noted the Single Judges’ operative directions — for example, orders directing respondents “to pick up name of petitioner from the reserve list to consider her candidature for appointment” — and held that such mandamus could not be sustained where the reserve list had lapsed under the applicable rules.

Background The appeals arose from three writ petitions concerning different recruitment cycles: Junior Legal Officer (advertised 19‑9‑2019; result 15‑4‑2021), Assistant Statistical Officer (advertised 6‑7‑2020; result 3‑8‑2021) and an earlier JLO cycle (advertised 18‑9‑2013; result declared in 2015). In each matter the Commission had prepared a provisional reserve list and forwarded recommendations to the appointing authority within the recruitment process. The RPSC received requisitions and recommended candidates at various points; in other instances candidates from the original select list did not join or their appointments were cancelled later. Aggrieved candidates in the reserve lists sought writ relief; Single Judges granted relief — in two cases directing authorities “to pick up” the petitioners’ names from the reserve list for appointment and in the third directing consideration of candidature — and the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the RPSC’s intra‑court “Special Appeals”, observing that the petitioners had approached the court within about six months of non‑joining and that the State had not preferred appeal.

RPSC challenged the High Court orders before this Court. The Supreme Court examined Rule 21/Rule 24 (Rajasthan Rules, 1981 and Rajasthan Agriculture Rules, 1978), which permit the Commission to keep up to 50% of vacancies on a reserve list and to recommend names “within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Appointing Authority.” The Court held that the statutory six‑month period is the determinative limit and that a reserve list is not an independent perennial source of recruitment but a contingency mechanism to meet non‑joining within the specified period. The Court also rejected reliance on parity with other recommendations made beyond the statutory period, reiterating that courts would not perpetuate or validate prior illegality and that “negative equality” cannot be invoked to sustain illegal appointments. The Supreme Court concluded that the Single Judges erred in reckoning the six‑month period from later dates of non‑joining or cancellation and that the High Court Division Bench improperly declined to adjudicate the RPSC’s grievance. The appeals were allowed and the writ petitions were dismissed; no appointment order issued to the petitioners was sustained.

Case Details: Case No.: 2026 INSC 64; Civil Appeal Nos. 273–275 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20366/2024, 20367/2024 & 22025/2024) Case Title: Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer v. Yati Jain & Ors. (and connected appeals) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Samant, Advocate (for Rajasthan Public Service Commission) For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Parameshwar, Senior Advocate (for Yati Jain); Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, Advocate (for Aakriti Saxena & Vivek Kumar Meena)