Selection process completion and lack of notified vacancies preclude appointment of candidates with lower merit.

The petitioner appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to the cadre of Inspector Posts for the year 2015-16. There were three notified unreserved (UR) vacancies in the Jharkhand Circle.

The petitioner obtained 786 marks and ranked 4th in the merit list; the last selected candidate (Uttam Kumar) obtained 792 marks. Consequently, the petitioner was not selected.

The petitioner contended that one candidate, Kumar Abhishek (ranked 2nd), was a candidate for the 2014 vacancy but was accommodated in the 2015-16 list. Following a Tribunal order in Kumar Abhishek v. UOI, Abhishek was shifted to a 2014 vacancy.

The petitioner argued that this shifting created a vacancy in the 2015-16 cycle that he, being 4th (now effectively 3rd), should occupy. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his application on 29.10.2024.

1. Whether the shifting of a candidate to a previous vacancy year creates an automatic right for the next candidate in the merit list to be appointed against the resulting vacancy.

2. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in reducing the notified vacancies for 2015-16 from three to two following the retrospective adjustment of a candidate.

The Court relied on the principle that the completion of a selection process terminates the rights of the candidates, and any subsequent vacancy must be treated as a fresh vacancy.

The process ends once appointments are made, as established in Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited v. Delson Davis and State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma.

A "vested right" is defined as an absolute, indefeasible right independent of contingency, as established in MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh.

The scope of judicial review under Article 226, as established in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, restricts interference to cases of patent error or perversity.

The Court examined the records and found that while three vacancies were initially notified, one UR vacancy was a "carried forward" post from 2014 added to the 2015-16 cycle due to previous litigation.

When the Tribunal ordered the appointment of Kumar Abhishek specifically for the 2014 vacancy, the respondent department reduced the 2015-16 vacancy count from three back to two to prevent double-counting the same post.

The Court observed that even though the petitioner moved up to rank 3 after Abhishek's shifting, there were only two actual vacancies available for that cycle.

Applying the 'vested right' doctrine, the Court reasoned that the petitioner had no absolute right to appointment simply by being on a merit list, especially since he ranked lower than the two candidates (Subhash Chandra Pandey and Uttam Kumar) who filled the available slots.

The Court also justified the consideration of administrative documents not produced before the CAT, stating that under Article 226, it can review the entire record to ensure substantial justice and prevent miscarriage of justice.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a vested right to appointment and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was upheld.