Waitlist Inclusion Confers No Indefeasible Right to Appointment Especially After the Panel Has Expired

The applicant participated in the selection process for the post of Grade-IV (DASS)/LDC (Post Code 61/15) pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/15 dated 20.10.2015

He was placed in the waiting list

Although several vacancies remained unfilled and 18 SC category dossiers were returned due to resignations/non-joining during the life of the panel, the applicant was not offered an appointment

The respondents notified the applicant that the select panel expired on 15.07.2019

Meanwhile, the respondents merged the unfilled vacancies into a subsequent recruitment process (Post Code 02/17)

1. Whether a candidate placed on a waiting list has an indefeasible right to appointment against unfilled vacancies after the select panel has expired

2. Whether the court can direct appointments from a lapsed waitlist when subsequent selection processes for the same posts have already commenced or concluded

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regarding its jurisdiction

settled legal principle that inclusion in a select/waiting list does not confer a vested right to appointment

The Tribunal cited Radhika T. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology Ors. (2025), which integrated principles from Rakhi Ray Ors. and Vivek Kaisth Anr., establishing that a waitlist cannot be used as a "reservoir" to fill vacancies beyond those initially notified or after a fresh advertisement process has begun

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant was on the waiting list and vacancies existed before 15.07.2019, his right to consideration ceased upon the expiration of the panel's validity

The court observed that the User Department had already exercised its discretion to carry forward 287 unfilled vacancies to a new recruitment cycle (Post Code 02/17), for which exams were conducted in 2019

Since subsequent selection processes had already taken place, granting relief to the applicant would be arbitrary and would prejudice candidates who became eligible after the original 2015 advertisement

The Original Application was dismissed, and all pending interim applications were disposed of with no order as to costs