Legal Review and Analysis of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer vs Yati Jain & Ors 2026 INSC 64
Synopsis
This judgment, delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, addresses pivotal issues concerning the operation and validity of reserve/waiting lists in public employment recruitment, the locus standi of State Public Service Commissions to file intra-court appeals, and the impermissibility of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court overturned the Rajasthan High Court's orders directing the appointment of wait-listed candidates, reaffirming that a reserve list has a finite statutory life and does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
1. Basic Information of the Judgment
Case Title:Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer v. Yati Jain & Ors
INSC Citation: 2026 INSC 64
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
Bench Type: Division Bench
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal Nos.: 273–275 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20366/2024, 20367/2024, 22025/2024)
Date of Judgment: January 15, 2026
2. Legal Framework and Relevant Precedents
A. Primary Legislation and Rules
Constitution of India:
Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of laws.
Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue writs.
Articles 315 & 320: Establishment, duties, and functions of Public Service Commissions.State Service Rules:
Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Legal State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1981.
Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978.
Both rules prescribe that a reserve list may be operated only for six months from the date the original select list is forwarded to the appointing authority.
B. Key Judicial Precedents Referenced
Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat: Clarified that a waiting list is not a perennial source of recruitment and operates only for contingencies arising from the same recruitment cycle.
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India: Held that a candidate in a select list has no indefeasible right to appointment.
State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra: Established that a mandamus cannot be issued to enforce a right based on an expired select list.
Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh: Rejected the concept of negative equality under Article 14.
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar & Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar: Elaborated on the meaning of "person aggrieved" for locus standi.
Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab: Outlined the recommendatory role of Public Service Commissions and the government’s appointing authority.
3. Relevant Facts of the Case
The appeals arose from three separate recruitment processes conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) for the posts of Junior Legal Officer (JLO) and Assistant Statistical Officer (ASO). The core factual matrix is similar:
Yati Jain (JLO Recruitment):
The reserve list was prepared on April 15, 2021. Recommendations from it were made until April 22, 2022, based on requisitions received within six months of the original list forwarding. Yati Jain (R-5) was not recommended. She filed a writ petition in June 2022 after the reserve list had expired.Aakriti Saxena (ASO Recruitment):
The result was declared on August 3, 2021, and recommendations made on August 13, 2021. A candidate from the main list declined the offer in February 2022. Saxena (R-1 in reserve list) approached the High Court in April 2022, well beyond the six-month validity period.Vivek Kumar Meena (JLO Recruitment 2013):
The original list was forwarded in 2015–2016. A candidate appointed from the reserve list did not join, and his appointment was cancelled in December 2016. Meena filed a writ petition in October 2016, after the reserve list’s validity had lapsed.
In all cases, the Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court directed the authorities to "pick up" the petitioners’ names from the reserve list for appointment, holding that the six-month validity should be computed from the date the vacancy arose due to non-joining. The Division Bench dismissed the RPSC’s appeals, prompting the present Supreme Court appeals.
4. Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
Whether the RPSC, being a constitutional body, has the locus standi to maintain writ appeals, especially when the State of Rajasthan chose not to challenge the Single Judge’s orders?
What is the true nature and lifespan of a waiting/reserve list? When does a wait-listed candidate’s right to consideration accrue?
In the absence of a requisition from the appointing authority, can a High Court issue a mandamus to "pick up" a candidate from the reserve list for appointment?
Whether the impugned judgments of the High Court are sustainable in law?
5. Ratio Decidendi of the Supreme Court
A. On Locus Standi of the RPSC
The Court held that the RPSC is a "person aggrieved" with valid locus standi to file intra-court appeals. As a constitutional authority under Articles 315 and 320, it performs independent statutory functions. Any direction to appoint a candidate not recommended by the RPSC directly affects its statutory role and exposes it to potential contempt proceedings. The Division Bench erred in dismissing the appeals merely because the State did not challenge the orders.
B. On Nature and Validity of a Reserve List
A reserve/waiting list is a contingency mechanism, not an independent source of recruitment.
Its validity is strictly circumscribed by the relevant rules—here, six months from the date the original select list is forwarded to the appointing authority (Rule 24 of 1981 Rules).
The validity period cannot be computed from the date a vacancy arises due to non-joining.
A wait-listed candidate has no vested or indefeasible right to appointment—a position weaker than even a candidate in the main select list (Shankarsan Dash applied).
C. On Claim of Negative Equality
The petitioners’ argument that since some candidates were appointed from the reserve list beyond the six-month period, they too should be appointed, was firmly rejected. The Court reiterated there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14. Illegality or irregularity in favour of some cannot be grounds to perpetuate further illegality (Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh).
D. On Maintainability of Writ Petitions
The writ petitions were filed after the reserve lists had expired. Since no subsisting legal right existed on the date of filing, the High Court ought not to have entertained them, much less issued a mandamus.
6. New Legal Framework Established
Strict Interpretation of Reserve List Validity: The judgment cements a rule-based over equity-based approach. The six-month period is mandatory and begins from the forwarding of the original list, not from subsequent events like non-joining.
Locus Standi of Constitutional Commissions: It clarifies that a Public Service Commission, as a statutory authority, is directly affected by judicial orders directing appointment and can appeal even if the State does not.
Rejection of Temporal Flexibility: The Court refused to accept that administrative delays or subsequent vacancies extend the life of a reserve list, ensuring finality in recruitment processes.
Reaffirmation of No Negative Equality: The judgment strongly reinforces that Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim parity in illegality.
7. Supreme Court’s Analysis and Examination
A. Analytical Methodology
The Court employed a textual interpretation of Rule 24, supported by precedents, to determine the reserve list’s lifespan. It distinguished the cited rulings (Manoj Manu, Sat Pal) on factual grounds—noting that in those cases, the courts were approached while the panel was still alive.
B. Conceptual Clarifications
Waiting List vs. Select List: Emphasized the hierarchical distinction—wait-listed candidates have lesser rights.
Role of Requisition: Highlighted that even if a vacancy arises, the RPSC is not obligated to recommend unless a formal requisition is received from the appointing authority within the validity period.
Judicial Restraint in Service Matters: Stressed that courts should not interfere with the employer’s discretion unless the action is arbitrary or malafide.
8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome
A. Strengths of the Judgment
Legal Certainty: Provides clear, predictable rules for operating reserve lists, reducing litigation.
Institutional Integrity: Upholds the autonomous role of Public Service Commissions.
Doctrinal Consistency: Aligns with established service jurisprudence on limited rights of wait-listed candidates.
B. Potential Criticisms
Equity vs. Law: The judgment prioritizes strict statutory compliance over equitable considerations for candidates who may suffer due to administrative delays.
Impact on Litigants: Candidates like Vivek Kumar Meena, who litigated for a decade, are left without remedy despite being next in line.
C. Final Outcome
All appeals filed by the RPSC were allowed.
The orders of the Single Judges and the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court were set aside.
The writ petitioners, though sympathetic, were held not entitled to appointment.
No costs were awarded.
9. (MCQs)
1. As per the Supreme Court’s ruling, from which date is the six-month validity of a reserve list computed under Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Rules, 1981?
a) Date of advertisement for recruitment
b) Date of declaration of the final result
c) Date on which the original select list is forwarded to the appointing authority
d) Date on which a vacancy arises due to non-joining
2. The Supreme Court rejected the plea of "negative equality" under Article 14 based primarily on which precedent?
a) Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India
b) Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh
c) Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat
d) State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra
3. According to the judgment, which of the following best describes the right of a candidate in a reserve list?
a) An indefeasible right to appointment if a vacancy arises
b) A right superior to that of a candidate in the main select list
c) No vested right to appointment, subject to strict validity periods
d) A right to be appointed if the main candidate resigns at any time
4. Why did the Supreme Court hold that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had locus standi to file the appeals?
a) Because it is a department of the State Government
b) Because it is a constitutional authority whose statutory functions were directly affected by the impugned directions
c) Because the State Government authorized it to appeal
d) Because the candidates had made representations to the RPSC