Inclusion in Waitlist Confers No Indefeasible Right to Appointment Over Executive Discretion to Initiate Fresh Recruitment

The Appellants were candidates for various police posts (Subedar, Platoon Commander, Sub-Inspector) under an advertisement dated 01.10.2021.

They participated in a multi-stage process (Preliminary, Mains, PET, and Interview) governed by the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2021.

A final select list for 959 out of 975 posts was published on 28.10.2024; however, the Appellants’ names were absent.

While a waitlist was prepared pursuant to Rule 12(2), it was not published.

In the interim, the State issued a fresh advertisement on 21.10.2024 for 341 posts rather than filling the remaining 2021 vacancies from the waitlist.

The Appellants challenged this as arbitrary.

A Single Judge partly allowed the writ petitions, directing the publication of the waitlist for transparency but refusing to order appointments from it.

These intra-court appeals were filed against that order.

Whether the State is legally mandated to operate a waitlist and fill unfilled vacancies from a previous recruitment cycle before initiating a fresh recruitment process?

Whether the non-publication of a waitlist prepared under Rule 12(2) of the 2021 Rules vitiates the recruitment process?

Whether a candidate has an indefeasible right to appointment merely by inclusion in a merit or waitlist?

The Court primarily applied the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2021, specifically Rule 12(1) (mandatory publication of select list) and Rule 12(2) (preparation of a waitlist equivalent to 25% of vacancies).

It relied on the established constitutional principle under Articles 14 and 16 that an advertisement is an invitation to apply and does not create an indefeasible right to appointment.

The Court further considered the precedent of Vivek Kaisth v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2024) regarding recruitment timelines and the executive's discretion to decide whether to fill vacancies.

The Court reasoned that while Rule 12(2) mandates the preparation of a waitlist, it is directory regarding its operation.

The Bench observed that the State’s decision to close the 2021 recruitment and carry forward unfilled vacancies to the 2024 advertisement falls within the "executive domain" and policy-making powers of the government.

The Appellants failed to demonstrate any mala fide or statutory breach that would compel the State to exhaust the waitlist before issuing a fresh advertisement.

Regarding transparency, the Court upheld the Single Judge's direction to publish the waitlist so candidates could know their standing, but clarified that such disclosure does not translate into a right to be appointed.

The selection process for the 2021 advertisement was deemed effectively concluded upon the issuance of the 2024 notification.

It held that candidates have no indefeasible right to appointment and the State retains the discretion to determine how many vacancies to fill.

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's order, which: (a) directed the State to publish the waitlist in the interest of transparency, and (b) rejected the prayer to restrain the 2024 recruitment or compel appointments from the 2021 waitlist.

No jurisdictional error or perversity was found in the lower court's refusal to interfere with executive recruitment policy.