Inclusion in a waiting list creates no enforceable right to appointment absent mandatory rules.

The applicant applied pursuant to the notification dated 11 August 2015 for recruitment to 503 posts of Upper Division Clerk and possessed a B.B.A. degree and Higher Grade Typewriting qualifications in English and Tamil.

He was placed in the Unreserved category in the waiting list, while the second respondent was placed lower in the overall merit/waiting list.

The applicant challenged the second respondent’s appointment as Senior Clerk in the Judicial Department by order dated 18 January 2018, contending that his higher position in the waiting list entitled him to appointment instead.

The respondents stated that the waiting list had been operated to fill vacancies arising from non-appearance for certificate verification, non-joining, resignation and consequential vacancies.

They contended that the second respondent was selected against an OBC-reserved vacancy, whereas the applicant, being an Unreserved-category candidate, was not within the zone of consideration for the available Unreserved vacancies.

The respondents also objected that the Judicial Department, which had issued the impugned appointment order, had not been impleaded.

1. Whether the appointment of the second respondent, who was lower than the applicant in the overall merit/waiting list, unlawfully overlooked or superseded the applicant’s claim for appointment.

2. Whether inclusion in a waiting list conferred upon the applicant an indefeasible or enforceable right to appointment against subsequently arising vacancies.

3. Whether the Original Application was maintainable in the absence of the Judicial Department, the authority that issued the impugned appointment order, as a party respondent.

The Tribunal applied the principle that mere inclusion in a waiting or additional list does not confer a vested, indefeasible or enforceable right to appointment, unless the applicable statutory rules impose a specific and mandatory obligation upon the appointing authority to operate the list.

It relied on State of Karnataka v. Smt. Bharathi S., Civil Appeal No. 3062 of 2023, 2023 INSC 573, which held that filling vacancies from an additional list depends upon the governing rules and remains within the authority’s discretion where no mandatory provision exists.

It also relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar, Civil Appeal Nos. 8822–8823 of 2022, which affirmed that an employer has discretion and flexibility in selection and appointment, subject to the requirements of legality, fairness and non-arbitrariness.

The existence of vacancies, by itself, does not create an automatic right to appointment.

The Tribunal found that only two vacancies in the Unreserved category remained within the notified vacancies and that candidates only up to Serial No. 15 in that category of the waiting list had been provisionally selected.

The applicant, being placed substantially lower in the Unreserved waiting list, therefore had no reasonable prospect of appointment against those vacancies.

The second respondent was not appointed against an Unreserved vacancy but against a vacancy earmarked for the OBC category. Consequently, his lower position in the overall merit list did not mean that he had superseded or displaced the applicant.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant’s placement in the waiting list did not create an enforceable right to appointment, particularly in the absence of any mandatory rule requiring appointment from the waiting list.

No arbitrariness, discrimination or violation of the applicable recruitment process was established.

It further held that the applicant had no indefeasible or enforceable right to appointment merely because his name appeared in the waiting list.

Finding no illegality, arbitrariness or discrimination warranting judicial interference, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application as devoid of merit and made no order as to costs.