A select list expires automatically after one year, barring appointments thereafter.

An advertisement for Class III posts in the Varanasi Judgeship was published in June 1993, and a select list was prepared on 18 June 1994.

The District Judge cancelled the remaining list in October 1995, applying Rule 14(3) of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, which provides for automatic removal of a candidate’s name if no appointment is offered within one year.

In separate proceedings, the High Court quashed that cancellation and held that the list would remain valid up to 18 June 1997.

Meanwhile, ad hoc employees were regularised and posted against existing vacancies.

Anand Kumar Verma, whose name was on the select list, filed his writ petition on 18 November 1997, after the three-year period had ended; the Single Judge nevertheless directed his appointment, and he served for more than 14 years pursuant to that order.

The District Judge appealed.

1. Whether a candidate named in a select list under the 1947 Rules could claim appointment after the one-year period prescribed by Rule 14(3) had expired.

2. Whether an administrative circular, including one later withdrawn, or earlier judgments concerning other parties could extend the select list’s life contrary to Rule 14(3).

Rule 14(3) of the 1947 Rules provides that a candidate not offered appointment within one year from recruitment is automatically removed from the register and must compete again in a subsequent year.

The Full Bench in Devendra Nath Srivastava v. State of U.P. held that the list ceases to exist after that period and cannot support later appointments.

Administrative circulars cannot override statutory rules.

Under Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, inclusion in a merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, though the State may not act arbitrarily or discriminate among candidates.

Appointments to public employment must also comply with Articles 14 and 16; selection against future vacancies not notified for recruitment is impermissible.

Res judicata requires, among other things, the same matter and the same parties or their privies.

The Court held that Rule 14(3) governed the 1994 list and caused it to expire by operation of law after one year; the direction in Adya Prasad Mishra to appoint selectees until exhaustion could not override that statutory limit.

That case concerned a different select list, and Verma was not a party to it; nor could the judgment extending the Varanasi list to three years assist him, because he filed his writ petition only after that extended period had expired.

The Court therefore rejected the Single Judge’s reliance on res judicata and found that directing appointment from the expired list would conflict with the statutory rules and the constitutional requirements governing public recruitment.

Although Verma had served for a substantial period and was not found to have committed fraud or misrepresentation, equity could not validate an appointment contrary to the rules; however, the salary and emoluments already paid were not to be recovered.

The writ petition was dismissed and the special appeal allowed; the emoluments already paid to Verma were not recoverable.