A waitlisted candidate has no enforceable right to appointment against a vacancy arising after selection concludes.

The respondents issued a notification dated 17 July 2009 inviting applications for a Group-D/MTS post, prescribing the age limit as 18–33 years, with relaxation for OBC candidates.

Prasanna Kumar Behera, an OBC candidate born on 5 May 1976, applied pursuant to the notification, appeared in the selection conducted on 9 April 2010, and was appointed on 21 May 2010.

His appointment was later cancelled on the ground that the applicable age limit was actually 18–25 years, and he was disengaged on 31 May 2011.

Behera challenged the disengagement in OA No. 552 of 2011. In a common order dated 11 January 2016, the Tribunal quashed the disengagement and directed his reinstatement, while permitting the respondents to take further action after providing him a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The order was upheld by the Orissa High Court on 19 July 2017.

Thereafter, the respondents initiated proceedings against Behera and ultimately disengaged him again on 10 November 2021 under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Mrutyunjaya Das, who claimed to be the next meritorious candidate in the 2010 selection, sought appointment against the vacancy arising from Behera’s disengagement. The respondents rejected his claim, stating that the vacancy had been reported to the Staff Selection Commission for fresh recruitment.

Das filed OA No. 421 of 2022, while Behera challenged the second disengagement in OA No. 732 of 2022.

1. Whether Mrutyunjaya Das acquired an enforceable right to appointment against the vacancy arising after the disengagement of Prasanna Kumar Behera, as the alleged next meritorious candidate in the earlier selection.

2. Whether Behera’s disengagement dated 10 November 2021 was legally sustainable when the departmental proceedings were initiated and conducted without complying with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the principles of natural justice.

3. Whether the respondents could invoke Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to disengage Behera despite the Inquiry Officer having found the charges unproved and without supplying the inquiry report or a reasoned disagreement notice.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a selection panel or waiting list is exhausted once the selected candidate joins service; a subsequent vacancy caused by termination, resignation, or removal ordinarily must be filled through a fresh selection process, as applied in Suman v. Bharati College & Ors., WP (C) No. 8104 of 2025.

For Behera’s challenge, the Tribunal relied on the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, including the requirements governing disciplinary proceedings and Rule 19, which permits action in specified exceptional circumstances but does not dispense with procedural fairness.

It further relied on B.V. Gopinath v. Union of India, holding that the competent disciplinary authority must independently decide whether there is sufficient material to initiate proceedings and must approve the charge-sheet.

Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank, concerning impermissible dictation by a superior authority.

Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Shariff and High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Amrik Singh, requiring supply of relied-upon documents and an effective opportunity of defence.

Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan and Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, requiring supply of the Inquiry Officer’s report and reasons for disagreement.

Union of India v. Mohan Lal Kapoor and Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, requiring disciplinary orders to contain reasons.

As to Das, the Tribunal held that Behera had been selected and had joined service; therefore, the original selection process and panel stood exhausted.

The later vacancy arose only upon Behera’s subsequent disengagement and could not revive Das’s claim from the old selection list.

The fact that Behera’s ineligibility was discovered later did not alter the rule, and the respondents were entitled to fill the vacancy through the fresh process initiated with the Staff Selection Commission.

As to Behera, the Tribunal found that the proceedings were fundamentally defective.

The department had initiated action following the direction of a higher authority without independently determining Behera’s responsibility for the department’s own error in prescribing the age limit as 18–33 years.

The so-called draft charges were not accompanied by the statement of imputations, list of documents, or list of witnesses.

Although the Inquiry Officer found the charges unproved, the report was not supplied to Behera, nor was any reasoned disagreement notice issued before the proposed disengagement.

The final order merely recorded that Behera’s explanation and personal hearing had been considered, without disclosing reasons for rejecting them.

The Tribunal therefore held that the action was contrary to the CCS (CCA) Rules, principles of natural justice, and the cited Supreme Court precedents.

OA No. 732 of 2022 filed by Prasanna Kumar Behera was allowed.

The disengagement order dated 10 November 2021 and the consequential communication dated 7 October 2022 were quashed.

Behera was deemed to have continued in service from the date of disengagement, with entitlement to seniority and notional pay fixation, but without back wages.

The respondents were directed to issue consequential orders within 45 days of receiving the Tribunal’s order.

No order as to costs was made.