AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
13.08.2026
Petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the legality and sustainability of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting : Bilaspur (In short ‘CAT’) dated 11.11.2025 in O.A. No. 203/00245/2022, whereby learned CAT has dismissed the original application for the reasons assigned therein.
Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No.2 had issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Pharmacist (Allopathic) and Staff Nurse. Last date for submission of online application was mentioned therein as 21.01.2019. Total number of posts advertised for Staff Nurse (subject matter of writ petition) was 17 out of which one post was reserved for OBC category candidates. Petitioner submitted application for the post reserved for OBC category candidate. Undisputedly after completion of recruitment process, respondents have published merit list and thereafter, select list for the post of Pharmacist (Allopathic) and Staff Nurse. In the merit list name of petitioner has been mentioned at Sr. No.18, however, she did not find place in select list as name of one of the aspirants has already been mentioned in the OBC category as Rakhi Pal. Before finalization of recruitment proceeding, she submitted an application stating that she want to quit from selection/appointment process, but name of petitioner who is immediate below to Rakhi Paul in the merit list in the OBC category, was not considered and was not called in further proceeding of appointment and not issued appointment order. Aggrieved with which petitioner filed original application, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order.
Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in the merit list along with name, percentage of marks secured by each of the candidates named therein is also mentioned. Name of Rakhi Pal is mentioned at Sr. No.13 as OBC category candidates and marks secured by her is mentioned as 66.03. Below Rakhi Paul, first OBC candidates is petitioner and her name is mentioned at Sr. No.18 in the merit list. In between Rakhi Paul and petitioner, name of other candidates belonged to unreserved and scheduled caste candidates are mentioned, therefore, petitioner would be immediate below to the selected candidate in OBC category candidates. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that before issuance of order of appointment, Rakhi Pal withdrew herself from recruitment process by submitting an application, therefore, it was for the respondent to consider the name of petitioner, who was just below the selected candidates in OBC category. Respondents have issued appointment order to other selected candidates. It is also contended that respondents have even not prepared list of wait list candidates of all the categories, who were just below the last selected candidates in the category. When name of petitioner was not considered, petitioner submitted representation before the respondents authorities, which also was rejected in arbitrary manner. The action on the part of the respondents in not considering the name of petitioner for appointment after withdrawal of Rakhi Pal, selected candidates in the selected list, is arbitrary and violative to the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also contended that in original application, petitioner has specifically pleaded that Rakhi Pal whose name find place in select list in OBC category candidates submitted letter/application of her unwillingness to join the post of Nursing Staff on 24.07.2019, whereas the order of appointment was issued on 08.10.2020, therefore, petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment, however, the said fact was not considered by the CAT in appropriate manner. He also contended that reasons assigned in the rejection of representation that vacancy notified above are subject to change, but there was no change in vacancy, because the vacancy published has not been changed by issuance of subsequent notification. The order passed by the CAT is without examining the entire facts of the case, hence, it be quashed.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submit that advertisement was issued in the year 2019, which is prior to the Covid-19 pandemic situation. He contended that earlier decision was taken to start Dispensary Cum Branch Offices (DCBO) in Chhattisgarh region, however, subsequently a decision was taken of not opening/starting of DCBO. He further submits that however in review meeting under the Chairmanship of Secretary (L & E) on 13.08.2020 it was decided that candidates selected of Pharmacist and Nursing post including DCBO should be given appointment and candidates recruited for DCBO should be adjusted against the requirements at the other hospitals, future vacancies etc as per needs. He also contended that appointment was made pursuant to the review meeting decision from select list only in which name of petitioner does not find place, therefore, there is no error in the decision making process. He also contended that representation submitted by petitioner was disposed of by detailed and speaking order which is also considered and extracted by the CAT in its impugned order. Petitioner do not have indefeasible right to claim appointment only because she participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent. There is no procedure of preparing of wait list. He also submits that the clause as referred to by learned counsel for petitioner in the letter dated 21.06.2019 (Annexure R-2) bears the word “may”.
We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.
Undisputed facts which is emerging from the records is that respondent No.2 published an advertisement for appointment of Pharmacist (Allopathic) and Staff Nurse. Last date for submission of online application was 21.01.2019. Respondent No.2 has published the common merit list and name of petitioner finds place at Sr. No.18 as OBC category candidate with 63.26 marks. In the merit list, name of one Rakhi Pal is also mentioned at Sr. No.13 as OBC category candidates with 66.03 marks. In the merit list (Annexure R-3) prepared by respondent No.2 of Pharmacist (Allopathic) and Staff Nurse name of Rakhi Pal is mentioned as OBC category candidates and her selection is against the post reserved under OBC category. It is also relevant to mention herein that in the merit list in between Rakhi Pal at Sr. No.13 and petitioner herein (Dipti Sahu), Sr. No.18, no candidate name is mentioned who have applied for the post reserved for OBC category.
Petitioner in Para 4.6 of original application has specifically pleaded that selected candidates Ms. Rakhi Pal, vide letter dated 24.07.2019 informed respondents authorities that she would not be joining against the post reserved under OBC category for Staff Nurse and would not claim any appointment in future. Copy of letter is marked as Annexure A-6. In reply to para 4.6 of the original application, respondent No.2 had pleaded that “the contents of this para called for no reply”, which means the fact pleaded by petitioner/applicant before the CAT, were admitted.
The stand taken by respondent No.2 before CAT is that applicant did not find place his name in the selected list and no waiting list was issued by respondent/Corporation and further that 17 DCBO proposed to be opened in the Chhattisgarh State were not operationalised and only one DCBO became operational. Therefore, by the time recruitment was made, posts were not lying vacant. Respondent No.2 in reply to Para 4.9 has further pleaded that applicant did not find place in the select list of 17 candidate declared on 27.06.2019 as she had secured less marks than the last selected candidate under the OBC category and therefore, applicant was not eligible. In pleading of the reply to para 4.12 of original aplication, respondent No.2 has admitted that letter of unwillingness dated 24.07.2019 by Ms. Rakhi Pal was received by respondent/corporation on 25.07.2019 and the offer of appointment was issued on 08.10.2020 to the candidates, who appeared for verification. From the aforementioned facts, it is evident that immediately after preparation of select list, Rakhi Pal the only OBC category candidate selected has shown her unwillingness to further participate in the recruitment proceedings.
Recruitment of the Staff Nurse under respondent No.2 is governed by Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (Nursing cadres/Posts), Recruitment Regulations, 2010 (In short ‘the Regulation, 2010’). In the Regulation, 2010, there is no specific mention as to the preparation of the select list, wait list, etc. before issuance of an order appointment.
Respondent No.2 on 21.06.2019 had issued the letter in the form of administrative instructions under the subject “Processing of Results of Nursing and Para-Medical Cadre Posts advertised in December, 2018 – Online Exam held on 26th & 27th February, 2019. In the said administrative instructions, it mentions the holding of written exam, preparation of combined merit list (post wise/region wise). It further mentions that combined merit list of paramedical & nursing cadre posts is forwarded through e-mail for processing and declaration of results by 28th June, 2019 with following instructions. In Clause -1 it is provided that number of candidates to be shortlisted for computer test is mentioned as for number of 1 vacancy, 5 candidates is to be shortlisted, for number of 2 vacancy, 8 candidates and 3 or more, 3 times the number of vacancies is to be shortlisted.
In Clause No.3 it further provides that select list may be revised in case of rejection of candidature of candidates during verification stage. The additional candidates finding place in the revised select list may be called for verification as instructed at Point No.2 above. In Clause-4 it also provides that after finalization of select list which comprises of candidates found eligible at verification stage, 25% reserve list/panel may be prepared. At the time of preparation of reserve list/panel also the candidates may be called for verification as instructed at Point No.2 above.
Relevant portion of the letter dated 21.06.2019 in the form of instructions are extracted below :-
As notified in the advertisement, for the post of Junior Medical Record Technician and Optometrist/Refractionist (wherever vacancies are notified in these cadres) the candidates for these posts shall be shortlisted for Computer Test in the following ratio:
The candidates finding place in Select List shall be shortlisted for verification of (i) Original Documents in support of eligibility for the post and (ii) Genuineness of the Candidates with Photo/Sign. on Application Form and Digital Photograph captured at the time of Computer Based Test before appointment. Offer of Appointment shall not be issued unless eligibility of candidates is verified at verification stage. The result should be published in the standard result formats enclosed herewith. The data of Online Application containing their Photo/Sign, Digital Photograph etc. shall be sent shortly for verification process.
The candidates found eligible at verification stage shall be given appointment by issuance of offer of appointment and candidature of candidates found ineligible at verification stage may be rejected. The Select List may be revised in case of rejection of candidature of candidates during verification stage. The additional candidates finding place in the revised Select List may be called for verification as instructed at Point No. '02' above.
After finalization of Select List which comprises of candidates found eligible at verification stage. 25% Reserve List/Panel may be prepared. At the time of operation of Reserve List/Panel also the candidates may be called for verification as instructed at Point No. '02' above.
The Results of shortlisted candidates may be uploaded on the Website of respective Hospital/Region. The Result must also be sent to ESIC Hqrs. at e-mail-pranava.kumar@esic.nic.in for uploading on ESIC Hars.
Website - www.esic.nic.in.
x x x x x”.
From perusal of the administrative instructions with regard to processing of results would clearly reveal, that under Clause-4, it is provided that after finalization of the select list, which comprises of candidates found eligible at verification stage, 25% reserved list/panel may be prepared and further that at the time of operational of reserve list/panel also candidates may be called for verification.
It is not in dispute that the instructions issued by the competent authority are not to be acted upon if it is in contravention of any of the provision under any act or rule governing the field. But if rule or act is silent on any point, the instructions issued by the competent authority will have the enforcing effect. It is settled law that administrative instructions issued by the authority can only supplement the applicable act or rule, but cannot supplant.
In the case at hand, there is no specific rule/regulations for preparing of reserved list/reserved panel, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, for publishing the select list and reserved list/panel, the authorities under the respondent No.2 have to follow the administrative instructions issued by the Deputy Director (Recruitment) and to act accordingly.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 696 had occasioned to consider the enforcement of administrative instructions and observed thus :-
“4.The view taken by the High Court that the administrative instructions cannot be enforced by the appellants and that vacancies became available after the initiation of the process of recruitment would be looking at the matter from a narrow and wrong angle. When a policy has been declared by the State as to the manner of filling up the post and that policy is declared in terms of rules and instructions issued to the Public Service Commission from time to time and so long as these instructions are not contrary to the rules, the respondents ought to follow the same.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway, (2019) 12 SCC 798 has also considered the issue with regard to applicability of policy contained by administrative instructions and observed thus :-
“12.Another argument raised is that recruitment policy is an executive decision and the courts should not question the efficacy of such policy. Neither the appellants nor this Court is questioning the efficacy of the policy contained in the letter dated 2-7-2008. All that has been done is to ensure implementation of the policy by Respondent 1, especially when it has failed to give any cogent reason to justify its action of not calling for candidates from the replacement list of extra 20 per cent candidates.”
In the case at hand also, there is no specific regulation with regard to preparation of wait list or wait panel, this has been mentioned in the administrative instructions issued by Deputy Director (Recruitment) vide its letter dated 21.06.2019. As there is already an administrative instructions in place as to how the result is to be processed and manner in which the select list and the reserved list/reserved panel is to be prepared, in the opinion of this Court, respondents authorities have erred in not following the directives of higher officials i.e. Deputy Director (Recruitment) of preparing the reserved list/reserved panel of 25% candidates with respect to the post.
Learned CAT while considering the original application filed by petitioner, has only taken note of the reasons assigned by the respondents/authorities in deciding the representation, which is extracted below for ready reference :-
“5………….The applicant submitted her representation with regard to giving appointment on the post of OBC, which was declined by one of the OBC candidate and the applicant is under the belief that the ) respondents is duty bound to operate the reserve panel/wait list panel against a vacancy that arose due to a selected candidate declined the offer of appointment to the post of Staff Nurse. The respondents examined the said representation of the applicant and the following observations were made:-
3.1That short listed candidate for the post of Staff Nurse S.No.11, Ms. Rakhi Pal has submitted her unwillingness letter to join. Thus, it is requested to issue appointment letter in favour of the applicant who is next in the merit OBC candidate, SI. NO. 18 in the merit list.
4.I have gone through the relevant records/facts related to the case and the following facts emerged before the undersigned:-
4.1In the first instance, it is utmost important to state that the respondent Corporation conducted recruitment of Staff Nurse and other paramedical staff with the objective of opening 17 new Dispensary Cum Branch Offices (DCBO) in various districts of Chhattisgarh. However, due to review/change in policy decision by the Administrative Ministry/Head Quarters of the respondent Corporation, opening of 17 DCBO has been kept in abeyance, thus, appointment letters were not issued in the year 2019, even to the 17 candidates whose names appeared in the main select list, though the recruitment process was concluded.
4.2Thereafter a review meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Labour & Employment, Government of India wherein it was decided that those candidate selected for Paramedical and Nursing Cadre posts, including for non-operational DCBOs be given appointment and the candidates recruited for such non-operational DCBOs should be adjusted against the requirements at other Hospitals, future vacancies etc. as per needs /requirement. The same was communicated by the Head Quarters office of the Respondent Corporation vide Letter No. A-12/16/6/2017, dated. 27.08.2020. Accordingly, 17 candidates whose names appeared in the main select list were given offer of appointment irrespective of whether the DCBOs are operational or otherwise.
4.3That at Note-1, just below the vacancy table on the very first page of the advertisement for recruitment, it was clearly mentioned that" Vacancies notified above are subject to change". The applicant must have taken due note of it at the time of applying for the post of Staff Nurse.
5.1As gathered from the representation of the petitioner, the only issue put forth by the petitioner is appointing the petitioner to the post of Staff Nurse, as a candidate namely Ms. Rakhi Pal, a candidate under OBC category, placed at Si. No.11 of the select list declined the offer of appointment.
5.2The applicant was aware that" Vacancies notified above are subject to change". It may be noted that despite the Respondent Corporation not operationalising the proposed DCBOs in various districts of the State due to administrative reasons, the Respondent Corporation preferred to issue offer of appointment to all the 17 candidates selected as per the original number of vacancies advertised for recruitment.
6.As explained above, the applicant did not find place in the list of 17 candidates declared selected on 27.06.2019 as she had secured less marks than the last selected candidate under OBC category. The Respondent Corporation had no exigency to operate reserve panel/wait list panel as new DCBOs proposed in the State have not been operationalized, hence no appointment was offered to the petitioner.
This Speaking Order is issued in compliance of direction of Hon'ble CAT, Jabalpur Bench order dated 30.11.2021 in O.A No.203/922/2021.
The reasons assigned in deciding the application that respondent/corporation had no exigency to operate reserved panel/wait list panel as new DCBOs proposed in the State had not been operationlised hence, no appointment was offered to petitioner in the facts of the case is contrary to the administrative instructions issued by Deputy Director (Recruitment) on 21.06.2019, because on that date there was no consideration with regard to non-operationalization of proposed DCBOs in the State. Therefore, respondents authorities who are dealing with the recruitment proceedings were duty bound to comply with administrative instructions issued by the Deputy Director (Recruitment) vide Annexure R-2 dated 21.06.2019.
Respondent No.2 was proceedings for recruitment of Staff Nurse on all post, which were advertised, therefore, all the 17 candidates whose names have been shown in the select list of Staff Nurse have been issued letter for document verification as is reflecting from Annexure R-
In the said notice for document verification, name of Rakhi Pal who subsequently withdrew her candidature from recruitment proceedings is also mentioned at Sr. No.11.
In the above facts of the case, the case of petitioner is covered under Clause 3 and 4 of instruction dated 21.06.2019 (Annexure R-2). Respondent No.2 issued letter on 27.08.2020 i.e. after about more than one year from the date of preparation of select list and issuance of notice for document verification mentioning that appointment to many candidates selected for post of Staff Nurse and Pharmacist (Allopathic) could not be given in different regions due to non-opening of proposed DCBos, however, in the said letter, protection has been granted to the non-appointed candidates which reads as under :-
“In terms of DOPT OM No. 22011/2/79-Estt. (D), dated: 8th February, 1982 there is no limit on the period of validity of the list of selected candidates prepared to the extent of declared vacancies. These instructions further provide that intake in the next recruitment should be reduced by the number of candidates already awaiting appointment and the candidates awaiting appointment should be given appointment first, before starting appointments from a fresh list from a subsequent recruitment or examination.
Bare perusal of the contents of the letter (Annexure R-9) would make it clear that respondents authorities had taken care of situation of candidates selected but could not given appointment due to non-opening of proposed DCBOs and have issued a direction that as there is no limit on the period of validity of the list of selected candidates prepared to the extent of declared vacancies and it further provides that intake in the next recruitment should be reduced by the number of the candidates already awaiting appointment and the candidates awaiting appointment should be given appointment first before starting appointment from fresh list.
Recruitment proceedings once started pursuant to the advertisement issued in this regard by the concerned authority is to be concluded by way of giving appointment strictly following the rules applicable for appointment of such posts. If on any point rule is silent, then administrative instructions issued by the competent authority for completing the process of recruitment is to be adhered to and officials engaged in the recruitment proceedings are duty bound to comply with those instructions. Non-compliance of the rules or the administrative instruction issued for completing the process of recruitment will be arbitrariness on the part of the officials of concerned department. The authorities engaged in the recruitment proceedings cannot by themselves take into decision in contravention of rules or directives. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway, (2019) 12 SCC 798 has observed thus :-
“6.Our country is governed by the rule of law.
Arbitrariness is an anathema to the rule of law. When an employer invites applications for filling up a large number of posts, a large number of unemployed youth apply for the same. They spend time in filling the form and pay the application fees. Thereafter, they spend time to prepare for the examination. They spend time and money to travel to the place where written test is held. If they qualify the written test they have to again travel to appear for the interview and medical examination, etc. Those who are successful and declared to be passed have a reasonable expectation that they will be appointed. No doubt, as pointed out above, this is not a vested right. However, the State must give some justifiable, non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the post. When the employer is the State it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot without any rhyme or reason decide not to fill up the post. It must give some plausible reason for not filling up the posts. The courts would normally not question the justification but the justification must be reasonable and should not be an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical exercise of discretion vested in the State. It is in the light of these principles that we need to examine the contentions of SECR.”
Respondent No.3 while acting arbitrarily had dismissed the representation submitted by petitioner overlooking the documents Annexure R-2 and R-9, which are directives and instructions given by Dy. Director (Recruitment) and Assistant Director (Recruitment), therefore, action on the part of the respondent No.3 is arbitrary and is not sustainable.
Deputy Director (Recruitment) have taken care of all the contingency including the contingency of a selected candidate to be not willing to continue and participate in the recruitment proceedings or any of the candidates shortlisted, at the time of verification of the documents got his/her candidature rejected and made provision for consideration of additional candidates from revised list by revising the select list and further that 25% reserved list/reserved panel to be prepared.
In the aforementioned facts of the case and the clauses mentioned in the administrative instructions, the application of word ‘may’ used in Clause-4 is to be read as ‘shall’ (mandatory) for complying with the directives, when it is to be read along with directives (Annexure R-2). Respondents authorities have lost sight of the administrative instructions issued by the Deputy Director (Recruitment) on 21.06.2019 (Annexure R-2) while considering the representation submitted by petitioner and it appears that CAT had fled away with the observation made by the authority deciding the representation without considering the documents (Annexure R-2) submitted along with reply to the original application and instructions on processing of results dated 21.06.2019 as also Annexure R-9 issued by Assistant Director (Recruitment)..
For the foregoing discussions as also the documents (Annexure R-2) & (Annexure R-9) forming part of reply submitted by respondents before the CAT in the form of administrative instructions as also above referred decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that respondents authorities erred in rejecting the application submitted by petitioner in the facts of the case and further the CAT, dismissing the original application by impugned order dated 11.11.2025, which are not sustainable. Accordingly both the orders are set-side. Respondents authorities are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner afresh in light of the administrative instructions issued on 21.06.2019 (Annexure R-2) and letter dated 27.08.2020 (Annexure R-9) issued by the Assistant Director (Recruitment) and to pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the administrative instructions dated 21.06.2019 (Annexur R-2) and letter dated 27.08.2020 (Annexure R-9) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicted here-in-above.
Sd/- Sd/-(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge