Movement to higher post within same Kerala department does not constitute resignation triggering waiting list operation.

The Appellant applied for the post of Junior Scientific Assistant (JSA F-1) under Advertisement No. 2/2022 issued by ONGC

He secured the second position in the merit list and was placed as Waiting List Candidate No. 1

The first-ranked candidate, Ms. Ankita Kukshal, joined the post on March 6, 2023

However, having simultaneously applied for a higher Executive level post (E-1) under a different advertisement, she was appointed to the senior post on May 19, 2023, while still on probation for the JSA post

The Appellant contended that Ms. Kukshal’s movement to the higher post constituted a "resignation" or "relieving" that revived the vacancy, entitling him to appointment per ONGC’s service rules

A Single Judge dismissed the Appellant's Writ Petition, leading to this Letter Patent Appeal

Whether the movement of a selected candidate to a higher post within the same organization during the probation period constitutes a "resignation" that triggers the operation of a waiting list

Whether a candidate on a waiting list possesses an indefeasible right to appointment once a post is initially filled by a selected candidate

The Court applied ONGC’s Service Rules, specifically Clause 24(6) and the Office Order dated January 11, 2019, which mandates that a waiting list can only be operated in four specific contingencies: failure to join, reluctance, refusal, or resignation by the selected candidate

It further relied on the legal principle established in *Dr. Shashi Bhushan v. University of Delhi & Anr.* (2025), which stipulates that selection only confers a right of consideration, not an indefeasible right to appointment, and that a waiting list typically ceases to operate once the advertised posts are filled unless rules specify otherwise

The Court reasoned that the vacancy did not arise from the four prescribed contingencies required to trigger the waiting list

Specifically, since Ms. Kukshal moved from a junior post to a senior post within the same organization (ONGC), the management treated her service as continuous and did not classify the movement as a formal "resignation"

The Court found no evidence of a formal resignation letter or an acceptance of resignation by the competent authority as required by the Service Rules

Consequently, the Court determined that the JSA F-1 post was "saturated" upon Ms. Kukshal’s initial joining, and her subsequent internal progression to an E-1 post created a future vacancy rather than a revival of the original recruitment cycle vacancy

The movement to a higher post within the same cadre/organization does not equate to a resignation for the purposes of invoking a waitlist

The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding no merit in the appeal

The Appeal and all pending applications were dismissed with no order as to costs