Candidates outside notified merit and waiting lists possess no enforceable right to appointment against unfilled vacancies.

The applicant applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the Prime Minister’s Special Package for Return and Rehabilitation of Migrants pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 04 of 2017

After participating in the selection process, a select list of 28 candidates and a waiting list of 14 candidates were published on 28.02.2019

The applicant’s name did not appear in either list as he secured 19.75 marks, ranking 87th in overall merit, while the last waitlisted candidate secured substantially higher marks

The applicant filed a writ petition (later transferred to the Tribunal) seeking a Mandamus to operate the waiting list to fill remaining vacancies caused by the non-joining of selected candidates, arguing that vacancies still existed under the migrant quota

The respondents contended that the applicant fell outside the zone of consideration and that the recruiting agency’s role concluded upon forwarding the merit-based lists

Whether a candidate who figures neither in the select list nor in the notified waiting list can claim a legal right to appointment based on the existence of unfilled vacancies.

Whether the respondents are obligated to operate or extend the waiting list indefinitely to accommodate candidates who failed to secure sufficient merit.

The Tribunal applied the constitutional principles of equality and merit enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India regarding public employment

The Tribunal relied on the precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, which held that even a selected candidate does not possess an indefeasible right to appointment

Recruitment must be governed by merit-based selection within a defined zone of consideration, and waiting lists have a limited statutory validity period for specific contingencies

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s rank (87th) placed him well below the last candidate included in the 14-member waiting list, effectively excluding him from the zone of consideration

The existence of vacancies does not automatically confer a right to appointment; such vacancies cannot be filled by bypassing the notified merit list, as doing so would violate the rights of more meritorious candidates and undermine the integrity of the selection process

The Tribunal rejected the argument that the special nature of the migrant recruitment package permitted a departure from merit-based selection, noting that while such schemes may relax eligibility, they cannot dispense with merit rankings

The recruiting agency had fulfilled its statutory duty once the lists were forwarded, and judicial review cannot be used to substitute the expert authority’s merit determination or extend the life of a waiting list that has expired

A candidate outside both the select and waiting lists cannot seek a Mandamus for appointment merely because posts remain unfilled, as granting such relief would unsettle settled principles of public recruitment

The Transfer Application was dismissed with no order as to costs