Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court, exercising its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, has dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment from a waiting list for the post of Civil Engineering Assistant in a municipal corporation. The Court held that a candidate placed on a waiting list acquires no enforceable right to appointment once the validity period of the selection list expires, even if vacancies arise later due to resignation or disqualification of selected candidates. Relying on binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court ruled that courts cannot issue mandamus for appointment contrary to recruitment rules governing the life of a selection or waiting list.
Facts
The petitioner applied for the post of Civil Engineering Assistant pursuant to a recruitment advertisement issued by a municipal corporation in August 2022. After appearing for the examination conducted in May 2023, the petitioner secured marks sufficient to place him at serial number two on the waiting list under a reserved category. One candidate from the select list initially joined but later resigned, creating a vacancy.
Thereafter, the municipal corporation invited candidates from the waiting list. The candidate placed at serial number one appeared for verification but was later found ineligible due to a pending criminal case and was eventually disqualified. Following this disqualification and the candidate’s express unwillingness to join, the petitioner made representations seeking appointment to the vacant post. However, the corporation informed the petitioner that the recruitment process stood closed, as the selection list had expired after one year from its publication in February 2024. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Issues
The principal issues before the Court were whether a wait-listed candidate has a vested or indefeasible right to appointment once vacancies arise, whether administrative delay in disqualifying an ineligible candidate can justify extension of the selection list, and whether a subsequent government resolution extending the life of selection lists could be applied retrospectively to revive an expired list. The Court also examined the extent to which writ jurisdiction can be exercised to direct appointment contrary to recruitment rules.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner contended that he was next in line for appointment after the selected candidate resigned and the first wait-listed candidate was disqualified. It was argued that the delay in completing verification and disqualification was entirely attributable to the authorities and that the petitioner should not suffer for administrative inaction.
The petitioner relied on a government resolution issued in December 2025, which extended the validity of selection lists to two years or until a fresh list is prepared. He argued that this resolution reflected a consistent policy of the State to extend selection lists where candidates are not absorbed, and therefore the expired list should be deemed extended, entitling him to appointment.
Respondent’s arguments
The municipal corporation and the State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had no enforceable right once the selection list expired. They relied on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India, which reiterated that even candidates included in select lists do not have an indefeasible right to appointment, much less those on waiting lists.
It was argued that the petitioner approached the Court only after the expiry of the one-year validity period of the selection list, and therefore no mandamus could be issued. The respondents further contended that the government resolution relied upon by the petitioner operated prospectively and could not revive an already expired list in the absence of express retrospective application.
Analysis of the law
The High Court analysed settled service jurisprudence governing recruitment and appointment from select and waiting lists. It reiterated that recruitment rules determine not only eligibility and selection but also the duration for which a selection list remains operative. Courts cannot rewrite these rules by extending the life of a list through judicial orders.
The Court emphasised that a waiting list is merely a reservoir to fill vacancies that arise during the currency of the select list. Once that period lapses, the waiting list ceases to have legal effect. Administrative delays or subsequent developments, howsoever unfortunate, cannot override the clear mandate of recruitment rules.
Precedent analysis
The Court placed strong reliance on a recent Supreme Court decision concerning public service recruitment, which held that no candidate—whether in a select list or waiting list—has an indefeasible right to appointment beyond the life of the list. The apex court had cautioned that sympathetic considerations cannot justify appointments contrary to governing rules.
The High Court also referred to precedent holding that government resolutions or policy decisions are presumed to operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise. Applying this principle, the Court held that the 2025 resolution extending the validity of selection lists could not retrospectively apply to a list that had already expired in February 2025.
Court’s reasoning
Applying these principles, the Court found that the petitioner’s right, if any, could have arisen only upon disqualification of the first wait-listed candidate. However, by the time that decision was taken and communicated, the one-year validity of the selection list had already expired. Once the list lapsed, no enforceable right survived.
The Court accepted that there was some merit in the argument that the authorities ought to have scrutinised the eligibility of the wait-listed candidate earlier. Nevertheless, it held that such administrative lapses cannot confer a legal right where none exists under the rules. The Court further observed that the petitioner remained free to compete in future recruitment processes and would not suffer irreparable prejudice.
Conclusion
The writ petition was dismissed. The Bombay High Court declined to issue any direction for appointment, holding that the petitioner could not seek absorption once the selection and waiting list had expired. No order as to costs was made. The judgment reinforces strict adherence to recruitment rules and limits judicial intervention in matters of public employment.
Implications
This decision reiterates a consistent judicial stance that waiting lists do not create vested rights and that courts will not compel appointments beyond the life of a selection list. For public authorities, the ruling underscores the importance of timely verification and decision-making within the currency of recruitment lists. For candidates, it serves as a caution that inclusion in a waiting list offers only a contingent hope, not a legally enforceable claim, once the stipulated period expires.
Case law references
- Supreme Court on validity of select and waiting lists: Held that even candidates in select lists have no indefeasible right to appointment and courts cannot direct appointment once the life of the list expires; applied to deny relief to the wait-listed petitioner.
FAQs
Q1. Does a candidate on a waiting list have a right to appointment?
No. Courts have consistently held that a waiting list does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment.
Q2. Can a selection list be extended after it expires?
Only if the governing rules or policy expressly provide for extension or retrospective application. Courts will not extend an expired list through writ jurisdiction.
Q3. Can delay by authorities justify appointment from an expired list?
No. Administrative delay cannot override recruitment rules or revive an expired selection list.