Authorities must decide a wait-listed candidate’s entitlement when the selected candidate declines appointment.

The petitioner challenged the selection of respondent No. 6 as Lightening Assistant, alleging that his ITI certificate was invalid because he pursued the ITI course while also studying for a B.Sc. degree.

The petitioner was placed first on the waiting list.

The official respondents denied that the certificate was fake, while also asserting that placement on a waiting list conferred no right to appointment and referring to a 2023 notification abolishing waiting lists.

During the proceedings, the Director of Information and Public Relations reported that respondent No. 6 had stated he was no longer interested in joining and sought return of his original documents.

The Tribunal noted that no formal appointment order had been issued and that it was unclear whether respondent No. 6 had ever joined.

Whether the petitioner’s placement first on the waiting list, together with respondent No. 6’s stated decision not to join, entitled the petitioner to appointment or consideration for appointment.

Whether the respondents should consider the petitioner’s entitlement in light of the Director’s communication dated 29 January 2026.

The Tribunal stated that mere selection does not confer a right to appointment, though a selected candidate has a right to have their claim for appointment considered; it described employment as a national resource and recognised eligible candidates’ right to consideration.

The respondents relied on Notification No. GAD-MTG0RBIV/127/2023 dated 26 September 2023, which they said abolished waiting lists through amendments to the Jammu and Kashmir (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2020, read with the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services and Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2020.

The Tribunal did not determine the notification’s application to this case or cite any judicial precedent.

The Tribunal considered the petitioner’s first-place position on the waiting list, the absence of a formal appointment order for respondent No. 6, and the latter’s communication that he was no longer interested in joining.

It did not decide whether the allegations concerning respondent No. 6’s ITI certificate were established, nor did it hold that the petitioner had an automatic right to appointment.

Instead, it treated the 2026 communication as requiring the respondents to assess the petitioner’s entitlement under the applicable law, leaving that determination to them.

The respondents could, if they considered it appropriate, give the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.