Inclusion in a waiting list confers no indefeasible right to appointment against vacancies from cancelled recommendations.

The applicants applied for the post of General Line Teacher, District Cadre Jammu, under Advertisement Notifications No. 05 and 06 of 2013

After participating in the selection process, select lists were issued in 2015. Neither applicant was included in the main select list; Sanjeev Kumar was placed at Serial No. 22 of the waiting list for TA 7752/2021

Rajinder Kumar was placed at Serial No. 58 of the waiting list for TA 7773/2021

The applicants alleged that the respondents withheld recommendations for several candidates for clarification of eligibility but failed to cancel those candidatures or operate the waiting list to fill the resulting vacancies

They further contended that some candidates were illegally permitted to surrender higher qualifications for weightage purposes after interviews

The matters were originally filed as writ petitions in the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and later transferred to the Tribunal

1. Whether candidates included in a waiting list possess an enforceable legal right to seek appointment against posts that remain unfilled due to the withholding or cancellation of recommendations of selected candidates

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to operate a waiting list after its validity has expired and the recruitment process has attained finality

The court applied the principle that inclusion in a select or waiting list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India

It further relied on State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh and Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, which clarify that a waiting list is a contingency measure for non-joining candidates and not a perpetual reservoir for vacancies

Additionally, the court noted that vacancies arising from the cancellation of recommendations or non-clearance of eligibility must be returned to the department for fresh reference rather than being filled from the waiting list

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicants were wait-listed rather than selected, they lacked a vested right to appointment

It observed that the scope of a waiting list is strictly confined to vacancies arising from the "non-joining" of recommended candidates; it does not extend to vacancies created by the "withholding or cancellation" of candidates' recommendations, which must be re-advertised

The Tribunal emphasized that the selection process was initiated in 2013 and the lists were issued in 2015, meaning the waiting list had long since outlived its statutory validity

To direct appointments from an expired list would impermissibly unsettle a concluded recruitment process

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of favoritism and arbitrariness as general and unsupported by specific evidence or challenges to individual selections

The direct answer to the primary issue is that vacancies resulting from cancelled or withheld recommendations cannot be filled by operating the waiting list, as such posts must be returned to the indenting department

Consequently, both Transfer Applications (TA 7752/2021 and TA 7773/2021) were dismissed with no order as to costs