A recruitment waitlist remains operative when the authority continues using it after its stated expiry.

The applicant sought appointment as Welfare Officer/Probation Officer/Prison Welfare Officer under Post Code 14/19.

She scored 140.25 marks in the unreserved category, against 140.75 marks obtained by the last selected candidate, and was placed at UR Wait List No. 11.

The respondents treated the waiting panel as valid only until 5 March 2021, one year after the main result.

However, they issued Result Notice No. 1116 on 18 March 2021, nominating candidates from the waiting list against returned dossiers received before 5 March 2021.

The applicant challenged the decision to treat the panel as expired and sought consideration for appointment

1. Whether the respondents could treat the waiting panel as having ceased to operate on 5 March 2021 when they continued to make nominations from it through Result Notice No. 1116 dated 18 March 2021.

2. Whether the applicant, at UR Wait List No. 11, was entitled to appointment or only to consideration in accordance with her place on the waiting list and the applicable rules or policy.

The DSSSB’s 2013 and 2018 policies, and the Services Department’s 2019 circular, provided for a one-year validity period for the select or waiting panel from the declaration of the result, with specified vacancies to be filled from that panel during its validity.

The Tribunal also relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in DSSSB v. Rahul Singh Rathore, W.P. (C) No. 8708/2023, decided 28 August 2025, which held that where the result is not final and supplementary results follow, the waiting-list period cannot be determined mechanically from the date of the initial result; the finality of the selection process is material.

A candidate on a waiting list is not automatically entitled to appointment; consideration remains subject to the applicable rules, available vacancies and the claims of candidates placed higher on the list.

The respondents’ own records showed that they nominated candidates from the waiting list against returned dossiers through Result Notice No. 1116 dated 18 March 2021, after the date on which they claimed the panel had expired.

The Tribunal therefore held that, in the circumstances of this recruitment, the respondents could not maintain that the panel had wholly ceased to operate on 5 March 2021 while also operating it afterward as part of the same selection process.

But the applicant was at URWL-11, and candidates at URWL-7 to URWL-10 were above her and had not been nominated.

The Tribunal accordingly declined to order her immediate appointment and instead required consideration in the prescribed order, subject to a qualifying vacancy and verification of eligibility.

The decision treating the waiting panel for Post Code 14/19 as having ceased to operate on 5 March 2021 was quashed to that extent.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicant’s candidature, along with candidates above her on the waiting list, against any vacancy liable to be filled from the panel and in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and policy.

The exercise was to be completed within two months of receipt of the order.

No past monetary benefits were granted; any appointment would carry such notional seniority and pay fixation as admissible by law.

There was no order as to costs.