Wait-listed candidates possess no indefeasible right to appointment following the expiry of the panel’s validity period.

The applicants, including Himani Sardana (Applicant No. 17), applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery) under Post Code 03/13. A common examination was held in 2014, and a revised result was issued on 07.03.2017

The Tribunal originally disposed of the O.A. in 2021, but the Delhi High Court granted liberty to the applicant to seek a review due to alleged errors regarding cut-off marks and vacancies

The applicant contended that the cut-off was 113.75 marks (later 115.75) and that she, having secured 113 marks, should be considered against a vacancy created by the non-joining of a selected candidate, Ms. Ghufrana Nahid, whose dossier was returned in 2020

The respondents argued that the applicant’s marks (113) were below the final cut-off (115.75) and that the waiting panel had expired on 06.03.2018, long before the vacancy in question arose

1. Whether a candidate has an indefeasible right to appointment against a vacancy arising from the non-joining of a selected candidate after the expiry of the waiting panel

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to appointment despite securing marks below the prescribed cut-off and the tie-breaking criteria applied by the Board

The court primarily applied Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution regarding equality in public employment

Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yati Jain Ors. (2026), which established that a waiting list has a limited life and a candidate therein has no indefeasible right to appointment, especially if the vacancy arises after the panel's expiry

The principle from Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, holding that even merit-list candidates do not have an absolute right to appointment

The court found that the applicant secured 113 marks, which was consistently below even her own asserted cut-off of 113.75 and the final cut-off of 115.75

The court noted that in cases of identical marks (tie-breaking), the respondents correctly preferred an older candidate (Ms. Chetna Kashyap) as per settled principles

The court reasoned that the dossier for the non-joining candidate was returned in March 2020, two years after the waiting panel expired in March 2018

Applying the Yati Jain precedent, the court emphasized that the validity period of a waiting list is designed to bring "quietus" to the selection process; therefore, a vacancy arising after such expiry cannot be offered to a waitlisted candidate

The O.A. was dismissed on merits, and the court found no infirmity in the respondents' decision to refuse the appointment. No costs were awarded