Person In Waiting List Has No Absolute Right To Get Appointed; Waiting List Cannot Exist For Unlimited Period: Allahabad High Court
The Court reiterated that one does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed because one qualified during the selection process.
The Allahabad High Court observed that a person in waiting list has no absolute right to consideration to get appointed.
The Court also said that a waiting list cannot remain in existence for an unlimited period, or a particular selection process cannot remain pending for an unlimited period.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed, “In aforesaid circumstances, petitioners’ petitioners have not disputed that waiting list could be published up to 25% of seats of vacancies declared. Therefore, an argument that there must be some criteria to five percentage of waiting list does not have much substance. At the request of petitioners, no direction could be issued to the respondents to publish a fresh waiting list to particular extent. It is discretion of respondents to publish waiting list to any extent up to 25%...It is well settled that a person in waiting list has no absolute right for consideration to get appointed as well as that a waiting list cannot remain in existence for unlimited period or a particular selection process cannot remain pending for unlimited period.”
Senior Advocate Siddharth Khare appeared on behalf of the Petitioners, whereas CSC AKS Parihar appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners applied for Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) positions under Advertisement No. 01/2016, which sought to fill 7,950 posts. After exams and interviews, results were declared between 2020 and 2021, but the petitioners were not included in the merit or the initial 10% waiting list.
In 2022, the High Court directed the Board to fill all surviving vacancies by preparing supplementary panels from wait-listed candidates. A subsequent Division Bench order in December 2022 required the State to collect data on unfilled posts and invite options from eligible candidates.
The core conflict involves Rule 12(8) of the 1998 Rules, which states that the waiting list should not be larger than 25% of the vacancies. The petitioners argued the Board must prepare a list up to the full 25% to include them, while the Board maintained this was a maximum limit, not a mandatory requirement.
On May 16, 2025, the newly formed Commission issued an order refusing to expand the waiting list. They used a sliding scale (ranging from 5% to 20% based on the number of posts) to fix the waiting list size, which the petitioners challenged as arbitrary.
Contention of the Parties
The petitioners contended that the respondents acted arbitrarily by failing to prepare a waiting list up to the 25% limit allowed under Rule 12(8) of the 1998 Rules. They argued that the respondents applied inconsistent criteria, fixing different percentages for different subjects without any uniformity. Furthermore, they asserted that since vacancies remain available, they have a right to be considered for appointment as they fall within the merit range that a 25% list would cover.
The respondents maintained that Rule 12(8) uses the phrase "not larger than twenty-five per cent," which establishes a maximum ceiling rather than a mandatory requirement to reach that percentage. They argued that the decision to fix specific percentages based on the volume of vacancies was a reasonable exercise of discretion and was not contrary to law. Additionally, they emphasized that the selection process originated in 2016 and argued that recruitment cannot remain open indefinitely, citing judicial precedents that even selected candidates do not have an absolute right to appointment.
Observations of the Court
The Court relied on the decision of Gaurav Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, [2025:AHC:32016], which said that such applicants have not acquired any indefeasible right to be appointed because they qualified in the selection process.
The Court observed, “It would be more appropriate if respondents have followed uniform criteria for fixing percentage of waiting list, but only on a ground that uniformity was not followed. A decision itself would not become arbitrary. Petitioners have failed to show that any statutory provision was violated. A direction was provided in Rules, which was earlier upheld, therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the decision in Writ jurisdiction.”
Conclusion
“In view of above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with impugned order. The judgment passed in Gaurav Kumar and Ambrish Kumar (supras) are also against the case of petitioners. Number of vacancies are also not on record. Recruitment process has already been concluded. Discretion exercised by respondents does not suffer with malice or is not an arbitrary decision.”, the Court concluded.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed all the petitions.
Cause Title: Nitish Maurya and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. [Neutral Citation:2025:AHC:206148]
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Siddharth Khare
Respondents: CSC AKS Parihar