Absent a statutory waiting-list provision, lower-ranked candidates have no right to subsequent vacancies.

The petitioners applied under the EBC category for Assistant Professor posts in Philosophy pursuant to Advertisement No. AP-PHIL-15/20-21.

They scored 76 and 77 marks; the last selected EBC candidate scored 78.

They challenged the selection of Respondents 12–14, alleging that those candidates had improperly claimed EBC status.

Respondent 12 later resigned, Respondent 13’s appointment was cancelled, and an inquiry concerning Respondent 14 remained pending.

The petitioners sought appointment, relying in part on the resulting vacancies and on the treatment of a candidate in a separate recruitment matter.

The Commission opposed the claim, submitting that neither the governing statute nor the advertisement provided for a waiting list.

1. Whether the petitioners could claim appointment against vacancies arising from a selected candidate’s resignation or another candidate’s cancellation, despite having scored below the last selected EBC candidate and in the absence of a waiting-list provision.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to parity with Ravindra Kumar, whose recommendation was substituted following correction of a marks-computation error.

Under Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, selection does not ordinarily confer an indefeasible right to appointment, although a decision not to fill vacancies must be bona fide and not arbitrary.

Vallampati Sathish Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad establish that, absent a statutory provision requiring a waiting list or otherwise conferring an entitlement, an employer is not ordinarily obliged to fill vacancies from candidates lower in the merit list.

Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana holds that a vacancy arising after a selected candidate joins and resigns may require a fresh advertisement and selection process.

The Court also relied on the Division Bench decision in Chandan Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar for the proposition that resignation vacancies ordinarily cannot be filled from an earlier merit list.

The advertisement’s Clause 9.1 provided for subject-wise and university-wise merit lists, but not a waiting list.

The petitioners’ scores were below the last selected EBC candidate’s score, and the Court found no applicable statutory or advertisement provision creating a waiting list.

Accordingly, the resignation of Respondent 12 and cancellation of Respondent 13’s appointment did not give the petitioners an automatic right to appointment; the governing authorities instead supported filling subsequent vacancies through the applicable future recruitment process.

The Court distinguished the cited cases of Aarav Jain and Sweety Kumari, where the candidates had scored above the relevant last-selected candidates, and Manoj Kumar, which concerned review of an allegedly arbitrary assessment.

It also rejected parity with Ravindra Kumar because his higher merit position was established after correcting an error in the computation of marks, whereas no comparable error or superior merit was shown for these petitioners.

Finding no merit in the writ petition, the Court dismissed it.