Inclusion in a waiting list confers no indefeasible right to appointment.

The applicants, all Scheduled Caste candidates, sought appointment as Construction Helpers based on their placement in the additional/waiting list arising from the 2015 recruitment for existing and anticipated vacancies.

They alleged that vacancies remained unfilled, reservation rules had not been properly applied, and persons outside the select or waiting list had been appointed.

The respondents maintained that the recruitment and reservation norms were followed; they stated that the Unreserved and Scheduled Caste cut-offs were 134.114 and 127.679, respectively, while the applicants’ marks ranged from 125.757 to 127.571.

The Tribunal found that 341 of 345 vacancies had been filled and that the remaining four vacancies were reserved for the BT category and could not be filled for want of eligible candidates.

1. Whether inclusion in the additional/waiting list, together with the applicants’ claim that vacancies remained available, entitled them to appointment

2. Whether the respondents’ operation of the select list and application of reservation norms were unlawful or otherwise warranted interference

The Tribunal applied the principle that inclusion in a waiting list does not, by itself, confer a vested or indefeasible right to appointment; a waiting list is not an independent or indefinite source of recruitment.

It relied on Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yati Jain, 2026 INSC 64, and Union of India v. Subit Kumar Das, 2025 INSC 1235, for those propositions.

The applicants also relied on Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC (Supp) 217, concerning the treatment of reserved-category candidates selected on open merit, but the Tribunal found no material establishing a departure from the applicable reservation rules.

No specific statutory provision or recruitment rule is identified in the order as the basis of decision.

The Tribunal examined the recruitment records and found that the prescribed reservation norms and selection procedure had been followed.

It compared the applicants’ marks with the applicable Scheduled Caste cut-off of 127.679 and concluded that none had attained the required cut-off; their inclusion in the additional list therefore did not establish an entitlement to appointment.

The records also showed that the remaining vacancies were BT-reserved vacancies for which no eligible candidates were available.

In the absence of evidence of procedural or reservation-related illegality, the applicants’ allegations did not justify interference.

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.