Unfilled vacancies confer no indefeasible right to appointment beyond the statutorily prescribed waiting list.

The Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Respondent) issued Advertisement No. 02/2012 for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary), notifying 226 vacancies for the OBC category.

The Petitioner, an OBC candidate, secured 131.75 marks, falling short of the 132.25 cut-off.

Following the selection and cancellation of some candidatures, 37 OBC seats remained unfilled.

Per a notification dated 13.06.2013, the Respondent maintained a waiting list capped at 10% of the notified vacancies.

Although the Petitioner secured the same marks as the last candidate in the waiting list, she was ranked lower based on the tie-breaking criteria of age (date of birth) and was excluded from the waitlist.

The Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) seeking appointment against the unfilled vacancies, but the Tribunal dismissed the application on 08.01.2019, holding that unfilled vacancies do not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.

The Petitioner subsequently challenged the Tribunal's order before the High Court.

Whether a candidate can claim a right to appointment against unfilled vacancies merely by fulfilling eligibility criteria when they fall outside the prescribed 10% waiting list cap.

The court primarily applied the principle that inclusion in a merit or select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, as established in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India.

It relied on Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, which held that the State may, for bona fide reasons, choose not to fill all notified vacancies.

The court emphasized the ruling in State of Karnataka v. Santhosh Kumar C, asserting that the selection process must be governed strictly by the statutory framework and applicable rules, and that a select list cannot be operated beyond the scope contemplated by the statutory scheme.

The court also enforced the Respondent’s Notification dated 13.06.2013, which mandated a reserve panel/waiting list limited to 10% of the notified posts.

The court observed that the Petitioner failed to meet the initial cut-off of 132.25 marks.

It noted that the Respondent acted in accordance with the Notification dated 13.06.2013 by capping the waiting list at 10% of notified vacancies.

The Petitioner’s exclusion from this list was due to tie-breaking rules (date of birth), which remained unchallenged.

The court rejected the Petitioner's argument that unfilled vacancies should be offered to all eligible candidates regardless of the waitlist cap, stating that such an interpretation would contradict settled law and amount to rewriting the recruitment process.

The court distinguished the Petitioner’s reliance on Prem Prakash v. Union of India and DSSSB v. Rajni, noting that those cases either involved candidates who were already selected or did not involve a specific 10% cap on the waiting list.

Consequently, the court found no arbitrariness in the Respondent's decision to close the recruitment process once the 10% waitlist was exhausted, despite the existence of 37 unfilled seats.

The Court affirmed that the existence of unfilled vacancies does not grant a candidate a vested right to claim appointment dehors the statutory framework.

Accordingly, the High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the writ petition.