Waitlisted candidates possess no indefeasible right to appointment, especially after the expiration of the panel.

The applicant applied for the post of Junior Assistant (Contractual) under Advertisement No. 01/Contract/FEB/2017.

She qualified the written exam and skill test.

However, her name was excluded from the final merit list.

Following a Vigilance Department enquiry, it was discovered that the Reservation Roster was incorrectly applied.

A revised merit list was prepared, which included reserved category candidates previously omitted.

Two unreserved candidates (Vaibhav Goyal and Touseef Ahmad), who were terminated after three years due to the revision, were re-appointed on "humanitarian grounds" as they were higher than the applicant in the waiting list.

The applicant, placed at UR Waiting List No. 3/4, challenged the non-issuance of her appointment letter, alleging arbitrariness and the illegal nature of "humanitarian" appointments.

1. Whether a candidate whose name appears in a waiting list acquires an indefeasible right to appointment?

2. Whether the respondents' action in revising the merit list and re-appointing certain candidates on humanitarian grounds while excluding the applicant was arbitrary or illegal?

3. Whether a mandamus can be issued for appointment after a lapse of several years when all sanctioned posts are filled?

The Tribunal relied on the principle that inclusion in a select list does not confer a vested right to appointment, as established by the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991).

It further applied the rule from State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda (2010), which holds that a waiting list is not a perennial source of recruitment and cannot be operated beyond its prescribed life—typically one year per DoPT O.M. dated 13.06.2000.

Regarding reservations, the court emphasized DoPT O.M.s dated 15.05.2018 and 21.11.2022, which mandate the strict implementation of SC/ST/OBC quotas even in temporary/contractual appointments.

The Tribunal reasoned that the respondents were duty-bound to revise the initial merit list because it violated statutory reservation policies.

The applicant’s claim failed because she was never in the revised select list, but only in the waiting list.

Under the Shankarsan Dash doctrine, the state is not legally bound to fill all vacancies unless rules mandate otherwise, and waitlisted candidates have no indefeasible right.

The Tribunal found that the re-appointment of two candidates on "humanitarian grounds" was a conscious administrative decision by the Board of Governors to rectify an error that had caused those candidates to serve for three years before being terminated due to the roster correction.

Since Touseef Ahmad had equal marks but was older than the applicant, he was rightfully placed higher in the waiting list as per standard tie-breaking rules.

The court held that no relief could be granted as all 16 sanctioned posts were already filled, and a mandamus cannot be issued to create posts or appoint beyond vacancies.

The court issued a cautionary direction to the respondents to ensure future recruitment processes are conducted with due care to avoid discrepancies in reservation rosters.