Unselected Candidate Lacks Legal Claim to Post if Meritorious Candidates Secure Higher Ranking

The petitioner applied for the post of Laboratory In-charge following an advertisement (No. 2180-83/02) by L.N. Mithila University (LNMU). He appeared for a written exam on 25.07.2012 and an interview on 30.07.2012

Though he claimed to be successful, the University issued him an appointment letter for the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) on 11.08.2012, conditional upon producing a physical training certificate.

The petitioner, lacking such qualification, did not join and sought information via the RTI Act between 2016 and 2019.

During the pendency of this writ, a University committee initially resolved on 15.02.2025 to appoint him as Laboratory In-charge due to "missing records".

However, upon tracing the original file, a second committee on 17.03.2025 reversed this decision, noting the petitioner was not the highest scorer for the Laboratory post and that the selection panel had expired after one year.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus for appointment to the post of Laboratory In-charge based on the 2012 selection process.

2. Whether the University's subsequent resolution to appoint the petitioner, made in the absence of original records, remained valid after the original merit list was recovered.

The Court applied the principle that a candidate has no absolute right to appointment merely by being in the selection process, especially if they do not secure the highest merit position.

It further relied on the administrative rule that a recruitment panel or merit list remains valid only for a specific duration, typically one year, after which no appointments can be made from it.

The Court also emphasized that appointments cannot be directed based on internal resolutions that were superseded upon the discovery of correct factual records.

The Court examined the recovered original merit list and found that the petitioner secured 63 marks, placing him at serial no. 9.

In contrast, candidates Dhirendra Kaushal (67 marks) and Krishna Kumar Satyavari (63 marks, reserved category) were selected as they ranked higher in their respective categories.

The Court found that the University had erroneously (and perhaps collusively) recommended the petitioner for the PTI post in 2012 despite his lack of qualifications, likely because he did not qualify for the Laboratory post.

The Court reasoned that the initial 2025 resolution to appoint him was a mistake born out of "missing records" and was rightfully superseded once the original file proved the petitioner was not the merit leader.

Furthermore, 13 years had passed since the selection, rendering the 2012 panel legally expired.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the University was correct to withdraw its interim resolution once the original records established the lack of merit and the expiration of the selection panel.