Waitlisted unreserved candidates cannot claim appointment against reserved category vacancies notwithstanding higher rank in merit.

The respondents issued an advertisement in April 2005 for the recruitment of Technical Assistant T-1 (Lab). The applicant, possessing the required qualifications, participated in the selection process

Following the Selection Committee meeting on September 10, 2005, a select list and a reserved (waiting) list were prepared

The applicant was placed at Serial No. 6 in the reserved list for the "Unreserved" category

Respondent No. 6 (Anjali Kushwaha), who was placed at Serial No. 17 in the OBC reserved list, was granted an appointment

The applicant challenged the appointments of Respondent No. 6 and others, seeking a mandamus for his own appointment, arguing that he was higher in merit than Respondent No. 6

The respondents contended that the appointments were made strictly according to category-wise merit and that Respondent No. 6 was appointed under the OBC quota after higher-ranked OBC candidates were unavailable or refused the position

1. Whether an Unreserved category candidate placed on a reserved list has a legal right to claim appointment against a vacancy filled by a candidate from the OBC category

2. Whether the mere inclusion of a candidate’s name in a select or reserved list confers an indefeasible right to appointment

The court primarily applied the principle that recruitment must strictly follow category-wise allocation as per the advertisement and recruitment rules

It further relied on the landmark precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, which settled the law that the mere inclusion of a candidate's name in a merit list or waiting list does not confer an absolute or indefeasible right to be appointed to the post

The Tribunal observed that the Selection Committee had recommended candidates based on distinct categories: Unreserved, SC, and OBC

While the applicant was indeed higher in overall merit at Serial No. 6 of the Unreserved reserved list, Respondent No. 6 was appointed specifically against an OBC vacancy

The Tribunal reasoned that a candidate from one category (Unreserved) cannot legally claim a post reserved for another category (OBC)

It found that Respondent No. 6 was appointed only after the non-availability or cancellation of appointments for those ranked above her within the OBC category list, thus maintaining procedural regularity

Since the applicant failed to demonstrate any illegality within the Unreserved category selection or prove any procedural infirmity or manipulation, the Tribunal determined that his grievance was based on a misconception of reservation rules

It reaffirmed that placement on a reserved list does not entitle a candidate to appointment, especially against a post designated for a different category

No order as to costs was made, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of