Expiry of a select list cannot defeat a timely claim when the selected appointment is cancelled for fraud.

An advertisement was issued for appointment to the contractual post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Bhaurana, Janpad Panchayat Pohari, District Shivpuri. The petitioner applied on 22 June 2012 and was placed second in the merit list, while Rajendra Singh Jatav was placed first and appointed on 26 December 2012.

The petitioner alleged that Rajendra Singh had secured appointment by submitting a forged computer-diploma marksheet. After his complaints were not acted upon, the petitioner pursued an appeal and revision. The Commissioner, Gwalior Division, partly allowed the revision on 5 April 2023 and remanded the matter to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Shivpuri.

On 10 August 2026, the Chief Executive Officer cancelled Rajendra Singh’s appointment on the ground that he had submitted forged documents, but denied appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the merit/select list had expired.

The petitioner contended that Rajendra Singh had also resigned on 1 May 2013 and that the petitioner had approached the authorities during the validity of the list.

The State opposed the petition, principally on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative appellate remedy.

Whether a candidate placed second in a valid merit/waiting list has a right to be considered for appointment when the appointment of the selected candidate is subsequently cancelled for submission of forged documents and the vacancy relates to the originally advertised post.

Whether the petitioner’s claim could be rejected merely because the merit/select list had expired by the time the competent authority finally decided the matter, when the petitioner had approached the authorities during the subsistence of the list.

Whether the High Court should grant relief despite the State’s objection regarding availability of an alternative appellate remedy.

A candidate in a waiting list has no vested right to appointment, but has a right to be considered according to merit if a vacancy arises against the advertised post during the validity of the list; the appointing authority cannot arbitrarily ignore the candidate or decline appointment without a justifiable reason.

This principle was drawn from Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1997) 8 SCC 488, S. Govindaraju v. Karnataka SRTC, (1986) 3 SCC 273, and R.S. Mittal v. Union of India, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230.

The Court also relied on Pallavi Shukla v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 1062/2011, decided on 23 January 2015, for the proposition that a claim made during the validity of a waiting list cannot subsequently be defeated merely because the list expired during the authorities’ or court’s consideration of the matter.

Applying Rameshwar v. Jot Ram, (1976) 1 SCC 194, together with the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit, the Court held that the right to relief must be assessed with reference to the facts existing when the proceedings were instituted, and procedural or administrative delay should not defeat an accrued claim.

Appointment remained subject to the petitioner being otherwise eligible, and back wages were excluded under the “no work, no pay” principle.

The Court found that Rajendra Singh’s appointment had been cancelled for submission of forged documents, resulting in a vacancy connected with the original advertised post. Since the petitioner was next in merit and had pursued his claim while the merit/waiting list was operative, he possessed at least a right to consideration for appointment under the governing principles.

The subsequent expiry of the list could not defeat the petitioner’s claim because the delay arose during the administrative and appellate process, and the petitioner’s entitlement had to be assessed with reference to the circumstances existing when he approached the authorities.

The Court held that the respondents could not benefit from their own delay or ignore the petitioner’s merit position without a justifiable reason.

On the facts, cancellation of the first-ranked candidate’s appointment created precisely the contingency for which a waiting list operates; therefore, the petitioner was entitled to appointment, subject to verification of his eligibility.

The petitioner was denied back wages on the principle of “no work, no pay”.

The Court clarified that the decision was based on the findings that Rajendra Singh had not appeared before the Chief Executive Officer during the proceedings and had already been removed from service for submitting forged documents.

Rajendra Singh was granted liberty to seek review, and the State was likewise permitted to seek review if any material fact had been wrongly represented.