Pending litigation does not extend a waiting list or create an enforceable right to appointment.

The applicant participated in recruitment for General Line Teacher, District Cadre Ramban, and was placed third in the Open Merit waiting list against Item No. 575.

After two candidates ahead of him were appointed from the waiting list, he claimed that cancellation of a selected candidate’s recommendation on 15 December 2017 created a vacancy for which he was entitled to appointment.

In earlier writ proceedings, the High Court had directed the respondents to operate the waiting list, subject to availability of vacancies and in accordance with law.

The respondents rejected the applicant’s claim on 10 November 2021, stating that the relevant vacancies had been used for the transition of regularised Rehbar-e-Taleem teachers and that the waiting list’s one-year validity had expired.

The applicant challenged that rejection and sought appointment from 15 December 2017, as well as damages.

1. Whether the applicant’s place on the waiting list, read with the High Court’s conditional direction, gave him an enforceable right to appointment despite the asserted expiry of the list and non-availability of a vacancy.

2. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s claim, including their stated use of the vacancies, warranted interference.

Under Rule 14(7) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Rules, 2010, as relied on by the respondents, a waiting list remains in force for one year from the date the original selection list is forwarded to the requisitioning authority.

Placement on a waiting list does not, by itself, confer an absolute right to appointment; the candidate’s claim depends on the governing recruitment rules and the list’s validity.

The Tribunal relied on Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer v. Yati Jain and Others, 2026 INSC 64, for the principle that cancellation of a selected candidate’s appointment after expiry does not automatically revive a waiting list.

The High Court’s direction in this case required operation of the waiting list only subject to vacancy availability and compliance with law.

The Tribunal held that the High Court’s direction did not declare the applicant entitled to appointment or extend the waiting list; its conditions—availability of vacancies and compliance with law—both remained operative.

The cancellation of recommendations on 15 December 2017 might explain why posts remained unfilled, but did not establish a lawful entitlement to appointment from an expired waiting list.

Nor did the interim restraint or the applicant’s challenge to the use of vacancies remove the separate requirement to establish a valid, enforceable claim under the recruitment rules.

The respondents’ reported vacancy position therefore did not overcome the applicant’s failure to establish such a claim.

It declined to interfere with the rejection order dated 10 November 2021, dismissed the claim for retrospective appointment and ₹5 lakh in exemplary damages, and dismissed the Original Application with no order as to costs.