While dismissing a petition of a teacher recruitment aspirant seeking appointment in the OBC Category against an unfilled vacancy, the Delhi High Court has held that no right to appointment can be claimed merely on the ground that certain vacancies remain unfilled once the cut-off list and the waiting list have been duly determined in accordance with the governing rules and the candidate does not fall within either.

The High Court was considering a Petition assailing the correctness of the order whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the Petitioner’s prayer for appointment on the post of assistant teacher in OBC Category against the 37 unfilled vacancies.

The Division Bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla and Justice C. Hari Shankar held, “Therefore, once the cut-off list and the waiting list have been duly determined in accordance with the governing rules, and the Petitioner does not fall within either, no right to appointment can be claimed merely on the ground that certain vacancies remain unfilled. In such circumstances, the Petitioner cannot claim any indefeasible right to appointment, and as to hold otherwise would amount to rewriting the recruitment process by this Court.”

Advocate Yashpal Rang represented the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel Avnish Ahlawat represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Respondent) issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary), Post Code 101/12. A total of 554 vacancies were notified, out of which 226 were reserved for the Other Backward Classes category. The Petitioner, belonging to the OBC category, participated in the selection process. The Petitioner secured 131.75 marks, whereas the cut-off for the OBC category was fixed at 132.25 marks by the Respondent. Out of the 226 vacancies reserved for the OBC category, 220 candidates were initially selected. Subsequently, the selection of 10 candidates was cancelled due to not reporting for document verification. Some candidates were also shifted to the unreserved category, leading to further vacancies. However, the Respondent did not issue a fresh cut-off list.

The Petitioner filed an original application before the Tribunal, seeking a direction to the Respondent to issue a revised cutoff list for the remaining vacancies. During the pendency of the said application, the results were revised, and a candidate with identical marks to the Petitioner was called for document verification. The Petitioner thereafter amended the application, alleging discrimination in the selection process and seeking a direction for appointment against the unfilled vacancy. The Tribunal dismissed the application, observing that the existence of unfilled vacancies does not confer any right to appointment, as mere inclusion in a merit list does not confer an indefeasible right.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan (2025) wherein it has been held that inclusion in a select list does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment and that the State may, for bona fide reasons, choose not to fill up all vacancies. Reference was also made to judgment in State of Karnataka v. Santhosh Kumar (2026) wherein it was held that mere selection in the list does not give rise to any defeasible right to appointment in favour of the candidate and the selection process must be governed by applicable rules. “Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles, the Petitioner's claim cannot be sustained”, the Bench stated.

The Bench further noticed that the Petitioner was not able to point to any provision in the governing rules which permitted extension of the selection process beyond the prescribed waiting list. The Bench referred to the Notification, which reflected that the governing rules restricted the selection process to the notified vacancies together with a waiting list candidate limited to 10%, and did not envisage filling up all unfilled vacancies by the candidates beyond this extent.

Thus, finding no ground to interfere with the Impugned Order of the Tribunal, the Bench dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Smt. Jyoti v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC2920-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Yashpal Rangi, M. K. Bhardwaj, M. D. Sajid, Praveen Kaushik

Respondent: Standing Counsel Avnish Ahlawat, Advocates Uday Singh Ahlawat, Tania Ahlawat, Nitish Kumar Singh S K

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Om Prakash ShuklaJustice C Hari Shankar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.