Inclusion In Waiting List Doesn't Create Indefeasible Right To Appointment: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that a wait list candidate has no absolute right for being considered for appointment and wait list cannot be for an indefinite period.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held,
“It is well settled that a person in waiting list has no absolute right for consideration to get appointed as well as that a waiting list cannot remain in existence for unlimited period or a particular selection process cannot remain pending for unlimited period.”
Petitioners participated in selection process for posts of Assistant Teachers (LT Grade) in privately managed recognized and aided Higher Secondary Schools in the State through advertisement issued by U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad. Initially, petitioners did not appear in the merit list or the waiting list.
Petitioners approached the writ Court where directions were issued to the Board to fill up all vacancies in the State through the procedure detailed by the Court. State preferred a special appeal against the order of the Single Judge wherein it was ordered that all vacancies be filed up by the selected candidates who had not joined anywhere and also by wait listed candidates by giving them options to choose regarding placement in such institution/colleges. Accordingly, fresh panel of candidates was to be prepared.
Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj issued a communication to Director of Education (Secondary) regarding counselling on vacant posts under waiting list and thereafter the process was completed after counselling the selected candidates as well. Subsequently, an order was passed stating that there was no need to modify the earlier waitlist. This order was challenged before the High Court.
The question before the Court was “whether it is mandatory to publish a select list having large number of candidates up to 25% and no discretion can be exercised to fix a criteria for waiting list.”
It observed that the Board was required to publish the waitlist to any extent upto 25% of the vacancies, which meant that it was not obligated to publish the a full waitlist of upto 25% of the vacancies but to any extent upto 25% which could be 5% or even 10%.
“At the request of petitioners, no direction could be issued to the respondents to publish a fresh waiting list to particular extent. It is discretion of respondents to publish waiting list to any extent up to 25%.”
The Court further held that merely because there was a uniform criteria which may not have been followed could not be a ground for interference under writ jurisdiction, unless it was shown that some statutory rule had been violated.
Holding that recruitment process had already ended and there was no malice or arbitrariness in the decision of the respondent, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Nitish Maurya and 4 others Versus State of U.P. and 4 others [WRIT - A No. - 7520 of 2025]