The Selection Committee finalized a list of 18 persons, 13 for the post of Accountant Member and 5 for the post of Judicial Member. The Petitioner, Inturi Rama Rao, was placed in a ‘Waiting List’ appointment as Accountant Member. The Select List was approved by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) and 11 vacancies of Accountant Members were filled up whereas 5 vacancies of Judicial Members were also filled up. Two vacancies of Accountant Members remained vacant as the two candidates who were selected were not cleared by the Vigilance. The Petitioner, who was in the Waiting List, perceived a right to be appointed against one of the vacant posts of Accountant Member. As appointment was not forthcoming, the Petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. Appropriate relief was granted by the CAT. The order of the CAT was affirmed by the Delhi High Court. However, the appeals filed by the UOI against the said order of the CAT and High Court were allowed by the Supreme Court on the ground that there was a difference between the main list of selected candidates and the wait-listed candidates. As appointments of the candidates in the main list (16 in number) had already been made, the Supreme Court thought it proper not to affirm the directions for appointment of the wait-listed candidates as made by the CAT and the High Court. It accepted the contentions made by the UOI that further appointments would be made only after amendment of the Rules pertained to the eligibility of the candidates. However, as the amendment to the Rules has not been effected till date and instead, the UOI initiated fresh selection process in the year 2013 on the basis of the unamended Rules and the selection process was completed and the appointments are awaited, the Petitioner filed a fresh Writ Petition. HELD by the Court allowing the Petition:

What we find is that notwithstanding the statement made on behalf of the Union of India before this Court that vacancies in the future will be made only after the amendments in the Rules are carried out, the Union of India has initiated a process to make further appointments without amending the Rules. If persons eligible under the then existing Rules which are in force even today are to be considered for appointment, surely, the petitioner, who is a wait-listed candidate, will also have to be considered for appointment by consideration of his entitlement for appointment as in the year 2007 when the appointments on the main-list were made and the two vacancies arose giving rise to the issue of operation of the waiting list. What follows from the above is that even accepting the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by this Court, in view of the subsequent facts and events that have occurred, namely, action of the Union of India in resorting to a fresh process of selection and appointment without amendment of the Rules, the right of the petitioner to be considered for appointment on the basis of his position in the Waiting List has once again come to fore which needs to be resolved by an appropriate order. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of his position in the Waiting List against one of the two vacancies that had arisen on account of two of the candidates in the merit list not having been granted the vigilance clearance. This will be done by the concerned Authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.