Expired Waiting Lists Cannot Be Operated for Appointments and Age Relaxation Is a Discretionary Policy Matter

The petitioners, waitlisted candidates for the post of Class-III Clerk (Code 701) based on a waiting list published by the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) on December 13, 2016, filed this writ petition on September 7, 2022

They sought a mandamus to operate the said waiting list to fill vacancies that existed before and during the Covid-19 pandemic

Alternatively, they requested age relaxation for future recruitments, claiming they became overage due to the respondent’s failure to operate the list or issue new advertisements for a prolonged period

1. Whether a waiting list published in 2016 can be directed to be operated after its expiry, especially when the petition is filed nearly six years later

2. Whether the Court can issue a mandamus to the respondent-Corporation to grant age relaxation to waitlisted candidates as a matter of policy

The court applied the settled principle that a select list typically remains valid for one year unless recruitment rules specify otherwise, as established in Girdhar Kumar Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan

It further relied on State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda, which held that the inclusion of a name in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment

The precedent dictates that a select list cannot act as a "reservoir" for future appointments and no relief can be granted once the list has expired and the process is complete

Regarding age relaxation, the court noted that such decisions fall within the exclusive policy domain of the employer

The Court observed that the 2016 waiting list had long expired by the time the petition was filed in 2022

Applying the precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Court reasoned that once a selection process is over and the list has lapsed, it cannot be revived to fill subsequent vacancies

The Court noted that the petitioners lacked a legal right to be appointed simply by virtue of being on a waitlist

Regarding the prayer for age relaxation, the Court found that directing the respondent to frame a specific policy would be an improper exercise of judicial power, as such matters are within the "exclusive domain" of the respondent-Corporation

The Court declined to issue a mandamus for age relaxation, it granted the petitioners liberty to make a representation to the SMC for such relaxation in future advertisements but clarified that any rejection of such representation would not constitute a fresh cause of action for challenge. The notice was discharged with no order as to costs