Non-selected candidate lacks indefeasible right to appointment or waitlist creation for minimal vacancies.

The applicant applied for the post of Election Assistant (Junior Scale), District Cadre Udhampur, under Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2011.

Following the selection process, a final select list was issued on March 1, 2014, featuring two candidates; the applicant secured 52.60 marks and was placed at Serial No. 3 in merit.

The two selected candidates failed to join, and their appointment orders were subsequently cancelled on August 4, 2014.

The applicant filed multiple representations and a writ petition (SWP No. 398/2017) seeking the preparation of a waiting list and appointment based on his merit position.

Pursuant to High Court directions to consider his claim, Respondent No. 3 issued Order No. 296-SSB of 2022 on November 3, 2022, rejecting the applicant's claim.

The applicant challenged this rejection, alleging discrimination because a waiting list was prepared for the same post in District Cadre Bandipora.

Whether the respondents were legally mandated to prepare a waiting list for the two advertised posts in District Cadre Udhampur under the 2010 Rules.

Whether the applicant acquired an indefeasible right to appointment against vacancies arising from the non-joining of selected candidates.

Whether the denial of a waiting list in Udhampur, while one was prepared in Bandipora, constitutes a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Rule 14(7) of the J&K Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010, which mandates the Selection Committee to draw a waiting list to the extent of 25% of the total number of selected candidates.

Principle established in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, which held that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.

Doctrine from State of Manipur v. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei, regarding the government's bona fide policy decisions not to fill vacancies.

Article 14 does not contemplate "negative equality".

The Tribunal analyzed Rule 14(7) of the 2010 Rules and determined that since only two posts were advertised for the Udhampur cadre, a 25% calculation did not yield even one full post for a waiting list; thus, the respondents’ failure to prepare a list was legally justified.

The court rejected the applicant's plea for parity with the Bandipora cadre, reasoning that recruitment is cadre-specific and any alleged irregularity elsewhere does not create a vested right in the applicant's favor, especially as Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate a wrong.

Regarding the impact of the non-joining candidates, the Tribunal reasoned that even if vacancies existed, the applicant, who was not in a validly prepared waiting list and had lower marks than the last selected candidate (52.60 vs 57.93), remained outside the zone of selection.

The court noted that the Service Selection Board became functus officio once the list was forwarded in 2014, and subsequent Administrative Council decisions in 2022 effectively withdrew old, unfinalized posts.

The court concluded that the impugned rejection order was reasoned and complied with the rules then in force.

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, refusing to direct the creation of a supernumerary post or interference with the selection process concluded over a decade ago.