Waitlist inclusion confers no indefeasible right to appointment or exhaustion of vacancies before fresh recruitment.

The Appellants were candidates for the 2021 recruitment process for 975 posts (Subedar, Platoon Commander, and Sub Inspector) conducted under the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2021.

After completing all stages—preliminary, mains, physical efficiency test, and interview—a select list for 959 posts was published on 20.10.2024, but the Appellants were not included.

While vacancies remained due to non-joining or resignation, the State issued a fresh advertisement on 21.10.2024 for 341 posts.

The Appellants filed writ petitions seeking the publication of a waitlist and a direction to fill 2021 vacancies from said waitlist instead of the 2024 recruitment.

The learned Single Judge partly allowed the petitions on 26.11.2025 by directing the publication of the waitlist for transparency but refused to compel appointments from it.

The Appellants preferred these intra-court appeals against the refusal of substantive relief.

The Court primarily applied the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2021, specifically Rule 12(1) regarding the mandatory publication of the select list and Rule 12(2) regarding the preparation of a waitlist equivalent to 25% of the posts.

It relied on the settled constitutional principle that the inclusion of a candidate's name in a merit or waitlist does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.

It further considered the doctrine of executive discretion in public employment, as reinforced by the Supreme Court in Vivek Kaisth v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2024), which balances the validity of select lists against administrative necessity.

The Court observed that while Rule 12(2) mandates the preparation of a waitlist, it does not impose a statutory duty on the State to operate it or exhaust all advertised vacancies before initiating fresh recruitment.

The Bench reasoned that the State’s decision to carry forward unfilled vacancies (resulting from non-joining or resignation) to a new recruitment cycle (the 2024 advertisement) falls within the "executive domain".

The Court found no evidence of mala fides or arbitrariness in this policy choice.

Regarding Rule 12(1) and (2), the Court noted that since the State had already prepared the waitlist and its validity was limited to one year under Rule 13(3), the Appellants could not claim a vested right to be appointed simply because they participated in the multi-stage process.

The Single Judge’s direction to publish the waitlist was deemed sufficient to satisfy the requirements of transparency and Article 14.

It held that candidates on a waitlist have no indefeasible right to appointment and the State retains the discretion to decide whether to fill vacancies from an old list or a fresh process.

The Court affirmed that there was no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the refusal to grant appointment-related reliefs.

No further relief was granted beyond the existing direction for the publication of the waitlist.