Candidates in a Select or Waiting List Have No Indefeasible Right to Appointment Against Unnotified Vacancies

The four applicants, residents of Lakshadweep, applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under a 2019 notification [Annexure-A1].

The notification advertised 54 vacancies and stipulated that vacancies arising until 31.12.2020 would be filled through this recruitment.

Following a written exam and skill test, the respondents published a provisional select list and a waiting list on 25.10.2021; the applicants were ranked at Sr. Nos. 2, 4, 7, and 8 of the waiting list.

The respondents appointed 47 candidates from the main list and one from the waiting list to replace a non-joining candidate.

The applicants, via a Right to Information (RTI) query, discovered 61 total vacancies existed as of 31.12.2020.

They approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to fill the remaining 13 vacancies from the waiting list, whereas the Administration contended that due to the delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it had made a policy decision to fill only the originally notified 54 posts.

1. Whether candidates included in a waiting list have an indefeasible or inherent right to be appointed against existing or future vacancies.

2. Whether the administration’s policy decision to limit appointments to the originally notified vacancies, despite a rider to fill vacancies up to 31.12.2020, was arbitrary or illegal.

The Tribunal applied the well-settled principle from Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47] and State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220], which establishes that the inclusion of a candidate’s name in a merit or select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment even if vacancies exist.

It further relied on Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2008) 2 SCC 161], affirming that the State is not under a legal duty to fill all vacancies provided it acts bona fide.

The Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Sheejamol [2020 (5) KLT 718] was cited to emphasize that an appointing authority’s decision not to fill vacancies for reasonable or policy grounds cannot be interfered with by the Court.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's status as "wait-listed" candidates is legally distinct from and weaker than those on the select list.

While the notification initially suggested filling all vacancies arising until 31.12.2020, the intervening three-year delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic justified the Administration's policy shift to limit recruitment to the 54 originally notified posts.

The court observed that the decision to prioritize fresh recruitment for subsequent vacancies—to ensure equal opportunity for newer aspirants—constituted a legitimate exercise of the employer's prerogative/domain.

Since the applicants failed to prove any mala fides or statutory violation, the Tribunal held that it cannot issue a mandamus where no legal duty or enforceable right exists.

It concluded that the Administration's decision to stop appointments from the 2021 list and conduct fresh recruitment for remaining vacancies was a valid policy matter exempt from judicial intervention.

The Original Application (O.A.) was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.