Candidates appearing in a subsequent TAIT cannot claim consideration for vacancies from the earlier examination.

The Petitioners were candidates who participated in the Maharashtra Teacher Aptitude and Intelligence Test (“TAIT-2022”) recruitment process conducted through the Pavitra Portal for appointment of teachers.

During Phase-I, approximately 10% of the advertised teacher posts remained vacant, including posts reserved for ex-servicemen and earthquake-affected candidates for which eligible candidates were unavailable; further vacancies arose due to absence, disqualification and non-joining of selected candidates.

Government directions issued in September 2024 and January 2025 contemplated filling the reserved and other unfilled vacancies in Phase-II from eligible and meritorious candidates.

The Petitioners alleged that the Respondents failed to properly de-reserve vacant special-category posts and sought consideration against the remaining TAIT-2022 vacancies.

By an order/letter dated 26 May 2026, the State declined to fill those vacancies from the TAIT-2022 candidate pool, referring to changes in the reservation framework, including the introduction of 10% SEBC reservation in 2024, and to the subsequent TAIT-2025 recruitment process.

The Petitioners therefore invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and sought quashing of the order.

The State contended that, under the Government Resolution dated 10 November 2022, TAIT-2022 scores ceased to be valid once the TAIT-2025 result was declared on 18 August 2025; it also pointed out that 28 of the 30 Petitioners had appeared in TAIT-2025.

Whether the State was legally bound to fill the unfilled Phase-I TAIT-2022 vacancies—including the 10% posts kept vacant and vacancies arising from absence, disqualification, non-joining and unavailable reserved-category candidates—from the TAIT-2022 candidate pool?

Whether the Petitioners could claim consideration on the basis of their TAIT-2022 scores after the declaration of the TAIT-2025 results, particularly when most of them had participated in TAIT-2025?

Whether the State’s refusal to fill the vacancies was arbitrary or otherwise amenable to interference under Article 226?

The Court applied the principle in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, that inclusion of vacancies in an advertisement and selection of candidates do not create an indefeasible right to appointment; the State is ordinarily not legally obliged to fill all vacancies, but its decision must be bona fide, based on appropriate reasons and free from arbitrariness.

This principle was approved in Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut, (2002) 4 SCC 726, and reaffirmed in All India SC & ST Employees’ Association v. A. Arthur Jeen, (2001) 6 SCC 380.

The Court also applied the rule against approbation and reprobation, relying on Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 16 SCC 187, and Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285, under which a candidate who participates in a known recruitment process cannot subsequently challenge its terms after the outcome is unfavorable.

The Government Resolution dated 10 November 2022 governed the validity of TAIT scores and provided that an earlier TAIT score would cease to be valid upon declaration of the result of a subsequent TAIT examination.

The Court held that the TAIT notification and governing Government Resolutions did not confer an indefeasible right on the Petitioners to appointment against vacancies that remained unfilled in Phase-I.

The State was therefore entitled not to fill those vacancies, provided its decision was bona fide and non-arbitrary.

The Court found that the subsequent TAIT-2025 examination and the changed reservation framework, including SEBC reservation, constituted relevant circumstances supporting the State’s decision.

More importantly, under the 10 November 2022 Government Resolution, TAIT-2022 marks could not be used for recruitment after declaration of the TAIT-2025 result on 18 August 2025.

The 28 Petitioners who appeared for TAIT-2025, with knowledge of the applicable framework, could not thereafter insist on consideration of their earlier TAIT-2022 scores; their participation was treated as abandonment of any claim based exclusively on TAIT-2022.

The Court also declined to disturb the advanced TAIT-2025 recruitment process, particularly because the Petition was filed only in July 2026 and approximately 1,70,000 candidates were awaiting recruitment opportunities.

However, the two Petitioners who had not appeared for TAIT-2025 had not relinquished their TAIT-2022-related claim and were treated differently.

The Petition was dismissed generally, but the State’s statement that it would consider Petitioner No. 6, Baburao Devidas Rankhambe, and Petitioner No. 20, Jyotsna Sunil Pangare, for appointment against unfilled Phase-I vacancies was accepted and made the basis of the limited exception.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed except qua Petitioners Nos. 6 and 20, with no order as to costs.