Facts
The applicant, Shri Arvind Kumar, applied for the post of Farm Manager (T-4) in response to an advertisement published in 2018.
Source reference: p.2Upon result publication in September 2019, the applicant's name allegedly appeared at Sl. No. 1 on a waiting list.
Source reference: p.2The selected candidate, Shri Nehail Hojai, resigned from the post in 2020 after being selected as an Agricultural Development Officer by APSC.
Source reference: p.2-3On 20.07.2020, the applicant, as the first wait-listed candidate, made a representation to be appointed as Farm Manager (T-4) against the vacant post.
Source reference: p.3However, the respondents did not consider his request and instead issued a fresh advertisement on 30.12.2020 for the same post.
Source reference: p.3The applicant, being overage, was unable to apply for the new advertisement.
Source reference: p.3The respondents contended that no waiting list was maintained and the selection process from 2018 was exhausted after Shri Nehail Hojai's appointment.
Source reference: p.4Issues
1. Whether the applicant, as an alleged first wait-listed candidate, is entitled to appointment to the post of Farm Manager (T-4) upon the resignation of the initially selected candidate?
Source reference: p.2-32. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in issuing a fresh advertisement for the vacant post instead of appointing the applicant from the previous selection process?
Source reference: p.3-4Law Applied
The court applied the legal principle that a wait list usually stands exhausted once all selected candidates have joined their posts and that the life of a wait list cannot be extended indefinitely to fill subsequent vacancies.
Source reference: p.4-6The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in *Union of India Vs. Subit Kumar Das*, dated 15.10.2025 (Diary No. 57192 of 2024), which held that giving effect to a statement (or, by extension, an unmaintained wait list) that would result in a wait-listed candidate being given an appointment after all selected candidates had joined would be impermissible, as it would amount to filling a subsequent vacancy from a previous recruitment process, causing prejudice to candidates in the subsequent recruitment process and extending the life of an exhausted wait list unlawfully.
Source reference: p.4-6Reasoning
The court found that the selection process for the Farm Manager (T-4) post advertised in 2018 was completed, and crucially, no waiting list was maintained by the respondents.
Source reference: p.4-5Therefore, the respondent authorities were justified in issuing a fresh advertisement to fill the vacancy that arose after Shri Nehail Hojai's resignation.
Source reference: p.4Applying the ratio from *Union of India Vs. Subit Kumar Das*, the court reasoned that once the original selection process was exhausted by the appointment of the selected candidate, the process came to an end.
Source reference: p.5-6Allowing the applicant's claim from an alleged wait list (which the respondents deny existed) would improperly extend the life of a recruitment process that had concluded and would prejudice new candidates by reducing subsequent vacancies.
Source reference: p.5Holding
The court concluded that the Original Application lacks merit.
It dismissed the application, holding that the respondent authorities correctly issued a fresh advertisement for the vacant post since the 2018 selection process was completed, and no wait list was maintained.
Source reference: p.4-5, 7No order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p.8Original Court PDF
Shri Arvind Kumar v. Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) & Ors. O.A. No. 040/00028/2021 [p.1]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in