Wait-Listed Candidate Has No Right Of Appointment Except When Governing Recruitment Rules Permit Small Window In Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering three appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “On a conspectus of the decisions of this Court governing the field of a select/merit list as well as waiting list, as understood in service jurisprudence, the law seems to be well-settled that when a candidate included in a select/merit list has no indefeasible right of appointment, it would be too far-fetched to think that a candidate in the waiting/reserve list would have a better right than a candidate in the select/merit list. We, thus, hold that a wait-listed candidate has no right of appointment, much less an indefeasible right, except when the governing recruitment rules permit a small window authorizing appointments therefrom in the specified exceptional circumstances and the appointing authority, for no good reason, denies or refuses an appointment or the reason assigned therefor is found to be arbitrary and/or discriminatory and that too, when the waiting list has not expired. What should be given primacy, therefore, is the nature and extent of right prescribed by the relevant rules.”

Advocate Yuvraj Samant represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Yuvraj Samant represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The matter pertains to three candidates. In the first case, the dispute arose from an advertisement issued by the appellant for the recruitment of Junior Legal Officer (JLO). The Appointing Authority informed that 6 out of the 152 candidates, who were recommended, had not joined. A request was made to recommend more names from the reserve list to fill the vacancies. The respondent, Yati Jan, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking a direction to the authorities to cancel the appointment of one Shri Vikas Kumar (appointed from the original list), who had not joined despite receiving an offer of appointment, and to instead requisition her name from the reserve list. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition of Yati Jain by directing the respondents to pick the name of the petitioner from the reserve list to consider her candidature for appointment to the post of JLO fallen vacant due to the non-joining of another candidate.

In the second case, the appellant Aakriti Saxena approached the High Court after the concerned department did not forward any requisition for recommending a candidate from the reserve list to fill the vacancy caused by the non-joining of another candidate to the post of Assistant Statistical Officer (ASO). This petition came to be allowed. In the third case, the High Court allowed the petition of the candidate, Vivek Kumar Meena, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Legal Officer, if he is otherwise found eligible and suitable. The Division Bench approved the directions of the Single Judges. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Dealing with the aspect of maintainability of petition, the Bench explained that before a person is entitled to maintain an appeal, the appealing party must be a party in the proceedings from which the appeal has arisen, the definitive and conclusive ruling of the High Court on the rights of the parties in dispute is the subject of the appeal and he must be a party who has been adversely affected by the determination.

Explaining that the appellant owes its existence to the Constitution, the Bench held that under Article 320, it is the duty of the appellant to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State of Rajasthan. The appellant has to be consulted by the State of Rajasthan on all matters referred to in clause (3) of Article 320, and it is the duty of the appellant to advise the State on any matter so referred. “Concomitantly, in our considered opinion, a direction to the State of Rajasthan to appoint a candidate from the waiting list who has not been recommended for appointment does give the appellant a legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on”, it added.

“Appellant being one of such “respondents” and if the State of Rajasthan, acting in compliance with the orders had requisitioned the names of the writ petitioners from the appellant and the appellant were to refuse to make any recommendation on the ground that the waiting list has lapsed or on any other valid ground, it would be a clear case of contempt. Thus, the Division Bench fell in error in holding that the directions of the Single Judges were not for the appellant before us to comply”, the order read. The Bench thus held that the appellant did fit in the category of a person “aggrieved” by the orders of the Single Judges of the High Court and did have the locus standi to approach the Division Bench.

The Bench was of the view that the illegality in recommending some of the candidates figuring in the reserve list could not have been made the basis for issuance of a writ of mandamus, citing Article 14 of the Constitution. The Bench made it clear that the writ petitions could not have been entertained, having regard to the dates of their presentation. On such dates, the reserve lists had expired, and none of the writ petitioners figuring in such lists could claim any right to seek a mandamus of the nature issued by the Single Judges.

The Bench thus observed, “The line of judicial precedents noticed above suggest that even a candidate figuring in the select/merit list has no indefeasible right of appointment. Viewed from that stand point, we repeat, a candidate figuring in the wating list cannot claim a better right than those who find place in the select/merit list. He/she, therefore, can claim only as much as the governing rules relating to recruitment enable or permit, more particularly when the life of a waiting/reserve list is limited.”

Thus, holding that the Single Judges had erred in passing the impugned orders, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments and orders of the Division Bench.

Cause Title: Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yati Jain (Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 64)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Yuvraj Samant, Neha Amola, AOR Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Advocate Keshav Thakur

Respondent: Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, AOR Ronak Karanpuria, Advocates N. Sai Kaushal, Abhimanyu Yaduvanshi, Prasad Hegde, Veda Singh, AOR S. Udaya Kumar Sagar

Click here to read/download Judgment