Vacancies caused by post-appointment resignation require fresh recruitment, not operation of the earlier selection list.

The petitioners participated in the recruitment process for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the OBC category pursuant to Advertisement No. 01-01/PD-03/4786 dated 15 September 2023 issued for CSPTCL, CSPDCL and CSPGCL.

The final selection list was issued on 23/24 October 2024, but the petitioners were not selected.

After selected candidates were appointed and joined service, some resigned, thereby creating vacancies.

The petitioners sought issuance of a First Waiting List/Phase-II List and consideration of their candidature against those vacancies, relying, inter alia, on alleged past practice and representations made to the authorities.

The respondents contended that the recruitment process had concluded in 2024, that the select-list validity was limited to one year under the Board Resolution dated 22 August 2023, and that vacancies caused by resignation after joining were fresh vacancies which could not be filled from the earlier selection or waiting list.

Whether candidates who were not selected in the original recruitment process could claim appointment against vacancies arising subsequently due to the resignation of candidates who had already been appointed and joined service.

Whether the respondents could be directed to prepare or operate a First Waiting List/Phase-II List after conclusion of the recruitment process and expiry of the select list’s validity period.

Whether alleged past practice of issuing a waiting list created an enforceable right in favour of the petitioners.

The Court applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana and Others, (2023) 10 SCC 54, that a vacancy arising after a selected candidate has joined service and subsequently resigned is a fresh vacancy and cannot ordinarily be filled by operating the earlier selection or waiting list; it must be dealt with through the applicable recruitment procedure, including a fresh advertisement and selection process.

The Court further applied the settled principle that an unselected candidate has no vested or enforceable right to appointment merely because a vacancy subsequently arises, particularly where the vacancy results from resignation after joining rather than non-joining.

It also relied on the Board Resolution dated 22 August 2023, under which the select list was valid for one year, and held that an alleged past practice cannot override the governing recruitment framework or create a legal right.

The Court found that the original recruitment process had concluded in 2024 and that the selected candidates had been appointed and had joined their posts.

Consequently, the vacancies relied upon by the petitioners were not vacancies caused by non-joining within the original selection process, but fresh vacancies created by subsequent resignations.

Applying Sudesh Kumar Goyal, the Court held that such vacancies could not be filled by reviving or operating the earlier select or waiting list.

The Court further held that, since the select-list validity was limited to one year and had expired by October 2025, the petitioners could not seek preparation of a fresh waiting list in 2026.

The alleged past practice of issuing waiting lists did not confer any enforceable right, especially after the recruitment process had attained finality and no specific governing rule supporting the petitioners’ claim was shown.

Both writ petitions were dismissed at the motion stage.

The Court clarified that any subsequent vacancies, if the respondents intended to fill them, must be dealt with under the applicable rules and recruitment procedure, including fresh recruitment where required.