Mandamus cannot be issued for appointment from a select list after its statutory validity has expired.

Respondent No. 1 participated in the selection process for the post of Clerk in the Civil Courts of Bihar pursuant to Employment Notice No. 01/2016.

He secured 74.25 marks and was placed at Serial No. 28 in the waiting list/panel dated 26.09.2018.

Under Rule 7 of the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and IV) Rules, 2009, the validity of this panel was two years, which expired on 26.09.2020.

While several other candidates approached the High Court during the panel's subsistence (2018–2019) and secured appointment orders through LPA No. 650 of 2022, Respondent No. 1 filed his writ petition only on 22.07.2022—nearly two years after the panel lapsed.

A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 09.07.2025, directing the appellants to consider his appointment based on parity with earlier successful litigants.

1. Whether the writ petition was liable for dismissal on grounds of delay, laches, and acquiescence due to the expiry of the statutory panel on 26.09.2020?

2. Whether the respondent-writ petitioner acted as a "fence-sitter" by approaching the court only after the success of other litigants?

3. Whether the respondent could claim parity under Article 14 based on the appointment of lower-merit candidates who had approached the court within the limitation period?

The Court applied Rule 7 of the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and IV) Rules, 2009, which mandates a two-year expiry for recruitment panels.

It relied on the principle from State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309, holding that no mandamus can be issued for appointment from a lapsed select list as the candidates no longer possess a subsisting legal right.

It further integrated the doctrine from State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347, which excludes "fence-sitters"—those who approach the court belatedly after seeing the success of others—from the benefits of parity.

Finally, the Court emphasized that Article 14 of the Constitution governs positive equality and does not permit "negative equality" or parity in illegality.

The Court found that Respondent No. 1 failed to assert his rights during the two-year statutory life of the panel, unlike the "vigilant" litigants in the LPA No. 650 of 2022 series who filed their petitions in 2018–2019.

The Court rejected the respondent's plea that he was not a fence-sitter, noting that he only filed an interlocutory application in May 2022 and the writ in July 2022, well after the panel's expiry.

The Division Bench clarified that the earlier judgments were in personam (restricted to the parties before the court) and not in rem, thus they did not automatically extend to all waitlisted candidates.

The Court reasoned that appointing the respondent solely because lower-merit candidates were appointed via prior judicial orders would constitute an impermissible application of negative equality.

It concluded that a lapsed statutory panel cannot be revived for a claimant who slept over his rights.

The Court held that the writ petition was barred by delay and laches as the respondent approached the court only after the panel’s statutory life had exhausted.

The Court further held that Respondent No. 1 was a "fence-sitter" and was not entitled to parity with vigilant litigants.

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.