W.P.(C) 13632/2022 $~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010359422022 + W.P.(C) 13632/2022 SHIV KUMAR BHARATI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Parul Shukla, Mr. Gladson Rodrigues, Ms. Shubhangi Pandey and Ms. Sarah Ayreen Mir, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Subhash Tanwar, SPC with Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Mr. Mohit Kumar Tomar, Mr. Mayank Sehrawat and Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN ORDER (ORAL) % 13.08.2026 AMIT MAHAJAN, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the Order dated 01.06.2022 (hereinafter “impugned order”) passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 3334/2017, dismissing the O.A. preferred by the Petitioner/Sh. Shiv Kumar Bharati. 2. Succinctly stated, on 26.04.2014, the Respondent No. 2/Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) issued a Notification for filling up of 29 vacancies through Direct Recruitment of the post of Assistant Director (Grade-III) (Economic Investigation) in the office of Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:20.08.2026 10:52:00 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 13632/2022 Development Commissioner, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME). The Petitioner participated in the recruitment process. 3. Subsequently, on 27.12.2014, another Notification was issued by the Respondent No. 2/Union Public Service Commission inviting Applications for the same post of Assistant Director (Grade-III). 4. The Petitioner participated in the selection process towards the 1st recruitment Notification and did not apply for the 2nd recruitment notification. He appeared in the interviews held during the period 06.04.2015 to 10.04.2015. On 15.04.2015, the result of the 1st Notification was declared and total 28 candidates were selected. A reserve list of 10 candidates was also prepared and the Petitioner was kept at Sl. No. 9. 5. In 2016, the Selected Candidate at Sl. No. 26, namely, Sh. Chetan Kumar Raigar, did not join the Department. Thus, the Respondent No. 2 was asked to recommend name from the Reserve Panel for filling the said post. Since Sh. Raigar did not join, the Petitioner filed RTI seeking further information regarding the above and representation dated 18.02.2016, claiming that he should be appointed against the above post, as he was in the earlier reserved list. 6. However, the Respondent No. 2 advised that in lieu of the subsequent completion and finalization of the recruitment process with respect to the 2nd Notification, the earlier reserve panel relating to the 1st Notification became null and void. The appointment of Sh. Chetan Kumar Raigar was canceled due to non-joining on 28.03.2016. 7. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the learned Tribunal by way of the above captioned O.A. No. 3334/2017 seeking directions Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:20.08.2026 10:52:00 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 13632/2022 that his name be recommended to be appointed for the above post of Assistant Director against the vacancy created in lieu of non-joining of Sh. Chetan Kumar Raigar. 8. Vide the Impugned Order 01.06.2022, the learned Tribunal, relying upon the OM dated 13.06.2000 of the DoPT, observed that Para 2 of the same specifically provided that a request for nomination from the reserve list may be made to the UPSC in the event of occurrence of vacancies caused by non-joining of candidates within a period of 1 year, if a fresh panel is not available by then. On the basis of the above, it was held that since the selection process qua the 2nd Notification stood completed and final recommendations dated 30.12.2015, regarding the fresh reserve panel of 17 candidates had already been forwarded to the Respondent No. 1 on 04.01.2016 (i.e. before the representation filed by the Petitioner) the earlier reserve panel became non-operative. 9. Aggrieved the present petition has been filed by the Petitioner. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has essentially argued that since a vacancy was created due to non-joining of a selected candidate / Sh. Chetan Kumar Raigar belonging to the selected panel of the 1st Notification, the recommendations for filling the vacancy should have been made from the reserve panel of the same Notification, in which the Petitioner was at Sl. No. 9. The OM dated 13.06.2000 was inapplicable as it itself recorded that the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission governed only cases wherein the vacancies resulted from death or resignation of an incumbent within one year of his appointment and not vacancies created by non-joining. Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:20.08.2026 10:52:00 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 13632/2022 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that the issues raised have already been addressed in detail by the learned Tribunal. The action of the Respondents is based on the extant policy as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal and thus, the present writ is liable to be dismissed. 12. Arguments heard and impugned order perused. 13. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. This Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, does not sit as an appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence or reassess findings of fact, unless such findings are perverse or suffer from manifest illegality. 14. Turning our gaze to the facts of the case, it would be apposite to examine Para 2 of the OM dated 13.06.2000 of the DoPT, which reads as under: - “2. The Fifth Central Pay Commission, in para 17.11 of its Report, has recommended that with a view to reduces delay in filling up of the posts, vacancies resulting from resignation or death of an incumbent within one year of his appointment should be filled immediately by the candidate from the reserve panel, if a fresh panel is not available by then. Such a vacancy should not be treated as a fresh vacancy. This recommendation has been examined in consultation with the UPSC and it has been decided that in future, where a selection has been made through UPSC, a request for nomination from the reserve list, if any, may be made to the UPSC in the event of occurrence of a vacancy caused by non-joining of the candidate within the stipulated time allowed for joining the post or where a candidate joins but he resigns or dies within a period of one year from the date of his joining, if a fresh panel is not available by then. Such a vacancy should not be treated as fresh vacancy”. Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:20.08.2026 10:52:00 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 13632/2022 15. A bare perusal of the above demonstrates, that the recommendation of the 5th CPC had been considered by the UPSC and it was decided that a request for nomination from the reserve list can be made, in case a vacancy arises due to non-joining of the candidate, if a fresh panel is not available by then. Thus, the argument raised by the Petitioner that the OM dated 13.06.2000 governed only cases wherein vacancies were created by resignation or death of a candidate, is untenable. 16. As regards the contention that the name of the Petitioner ought to have been recommended from the reserve panel pertaining the 1st Notification, the same has already been examined by the learned Tribunal. It has been rightly observed that, once the selection process qua the 1st Notification and 2nd Notification stood completed and even recommendation letter dated 30.12.2015 regarding the fresh panel of 17 candidates qua the 2nd Notification was already sent in January 2016, the reserve panel qua the 1st Notification ceased to operate/became null and void in lieu of the OM dated 13.06.2000, which categorically provided that recommendations can only be sent if the fresh panel is not available. Notably, the policy/OM is not under challenge and thus, once the fresh reserve panel was available when the Petitioner filed his request in February 2016, no recommendations could have been made from the 1st Panel as per the policy. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no perversity or patent illegality has been demonstrated in the impugned order. The Petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:20.08.2026 10:52:00 W.P.(C) 13632/2022 18. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J C.HARI SHANKAR, J AUGUST 13, 2026 Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Date:20.08.2026 10:52:00