Lapsed waitlist panels cannot be revived to fill vacancies arising after the expiry of their validity.

The Petitioner applied for the post of PGT (Sanskrit) (Female) under the OBC category following Advertisement No. 01/14 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB).

Out of four advertised OBC vacancies, three candidates were appointed upon the declaration of results on 10.10.2016, while the fourth candidature (Roll No. 35002828) was kept pending for certificate verification.

The Petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2 in the unselected OBC waitlist.

Per DSSSB policy, the waitlist remained valid for one year, expiring on 09.10.2017.

The Petitioner filed O.A. No. 4229/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in November 2017.

During the pendency of the OA, the fourth candidate's candidature was cancelled on 05.09.2018.

The Tribunal dismissed the OA, holding that the panel had expired before the vacancy arose.

1. Whether a candidate in a waiting list acquires an indefeasible right to appointment against a vacancy that arises after the expiry of the waitlist's validity period.

2. Whether the pendency of verification for a selected candidate's credentials serves to extend or defer the expiration of the waiting panel.

The court applied the established principle that inclusion in a waitlist does not confer a vested right to appointment, but only a limited right to be considered during the validity period of the panel.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer v. Yati Jain & Ors. (2026 INSC 64), which held that a waiting list cannot be a perennial source of recruitment and ceases to be operative once its validity period expires.

The court further applied the principle that a vacancy arising after the lapse of a waiting list must be filled through fresh recruitment to safeguard the rights of future aspirants.

The court reasoned that the Petitioner’s right to consideration was contingent upon a vacancy arising within the panel's one-year life span, which ended on 09.10.2017.

Since the vacancy in question only crystallized on 05.09.2018—nearly a year after the panel lapsed—the Respondents were legally precluded from operating the expired waitlist.

The court rejected the Petitioner’s contention that the result was not "final" due to the pending verification of one candidate, noting that such an interpretation would make the lifespan of recruitment panels indeterminate and subject to administrative delays.

Additionally, the court noted that the Petitioner, being at Serial No. 2 of the waitlist, failed to demonstrate that the candidate at Serial No. 1 was unavailable or disqualified during the validity period, meaning the Petitioner never legally entered the zone of consideration.

The court distinguished Kuldeep Singh v. DSSSB, noting that the advertisement in the present case expressly stipulated a one-year limit for the waitlist.

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, concluding that a vacancy arising after the expiration of a waitlist cannot be filled from that exhausted list, and there was no evidence of arbitrariness or discrimination by the Respondents.