Mere participation in selection process or existence of vacancies confers no indefeasible right to appointment.

Eighteen applicants sought appointment as Teachers in District Cadre Rajouri pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 07 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010

The selection process was originally quashed by the High Court in 2013, but the Supreme Court in 2015 set aside the de novo selection order only for specific parties

The applicants alleged that out of 295 advertised posts, significant vacancies remained unfilled and that less meritorious candidates were appointed in 2017

They approached the Tribunal following a 2019 Supreme Court order granting liberty to seek appropriate relief

The respondents contended that the selection process was long finalized and that a 2022 Government policy withdrew all non-finalized or litigated posts referred prior to 31.10.2019 ab initio

Whether candidates from a selection process initiated in 2010 have a vested legal right to seek appointment against allegedly unfilled vacancies over a decade later

Whether the appointment of allegedly less meritorious candidates entitles the applicants to a claim of "negative equality" under Article 14

Whether the recruitment process remained "live" following the Government’s 2022 decision to withdraw older litigated posts

The court primarily applied the principle established in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, which holds that mere participation in a selection process or inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment

It further relied on the doctrine that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage "negative equality," meaning one person's illegal or irregular appointment does not entitle others to similar treatment

The court also applied settled principles of service jurisprudence regarding stale claims, noting that recruitment processes cannot be treated as perpetual reservoirs for appointments

The Tribunal reasoned that a recruitment process from 2010 could not be kept alive indefinitely as it would convert the selection into a perpetual source of appointment, which is legally impermissible

It observed that the applicants failed to prove a presently enforceable position in a live select list

Regarding the allegation that less meritorious individuals were appointed, the Tribunal held that equality cannot be claimed in illegality; even if irregularities occurred elsewhere, they do not create a right for a mandamus in favor of the applicants

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the claim to be "stale," as the grievance was built on events spanning 2013–2019, and reopening the matter would unsettle long-past administrative actions

The 2022 Government decision to withdraw such old posts ab initio further nullified any remaining basis for the claim

The court answered that "expectation is not right, and grievance is not entitlement"

No directions were issued for appointment, and the prayer to restrain the respondents from filling posts was denied. No order as to costs was made