Exhaustion of Recruitment Waitlists Subject to Availability of Vacancies and Recommendations by Competent Authorities

Two applicants, Poonam and Sajiya Parveen, filed an Original Application seeking a direction to the respondents to complete the recruitment process for 445 OBC posts of Nursing Officers (Post Code 02/24).

Specifically, they sought appointment by exhausting the OBC waitlist/reserve panel, where they were ranked at serial numbers 51 and 86 respectively.

During the proceedings, Respondent No. 8 (Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital) filed an affidavit stating that out of 31 e-dossiers received, 25 candidates had joined, 4 were in process, and 2 were cancelled; further, all 189 sanctioned posts at that hospital were filled.

It was also disclosed that Applicant No. 1 had since received an email offering appointment from G.B. Pant Hospital (GIPMER).

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to appoint the applicants to the post of Nursing Officer from the OBC Waitlist/Reserve Panel.

2. Whether the recruitment process could be concluded without considering the waitlisted applicants for vacant sanctioned posts.

The Court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the jurisdiction for aggrieved public servants to seek redressal.

The case also touched upon the administrative principle that while a waitlisted candidate does not have an absolute indefeasible right to appointment, the offer of appointment made to a candidate must be taken to its "logical conclusion" in accordance with law and eligibility.

Additionally, the court underscored that it will not undertake a "roving inquiry" into the status of waitlisted candidates if the respondents provide sworn testimony regarding the absence of vacancies or recommendations.

The Tribunal analyzed the individual status of the two applicants after the filing of the counter-affidavit. For Applicant No. 1 (Poonam), the court noted that since an offer of appointment had already been issued by G.B. Pant Hospital, the grievance was largely addressed, necessitating a direction for the respondents to finalize her appointment subject to eligibility.

For Applicant No. 2 (Sajiya Parveen), the Tribunal relied on the affidavit of Respondent No. 8, which clarified that the hospital had not received a recommendation for her from the Health and Family Welfare Department and that no vacancies currently existed at that specific facility.

The Tribunal reasoned that it could not engage in a speculative inquiry regarding the general waitlist status of Applicant No. 2 in the face of specific evidentiary denials by the respondent hospital.

Regarding Applicant No. 2, the Tribunal declined further intervention but granted her liberty to avail legal remedies if she remains aggrieved, based on her status as a waitlisted candidate.

The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. at the admission stage. M.A. No. 1814/2026 for joining together was allowed. No order as to costs was made.