Supreme Court Flags Prolonged Service Litigations Blocking Appointments, Calls For Judicial Introspection

Warning that prolonged and recurring service litigation is pushing public recruitment into a state of “perpetual flux”, the Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered on January 15, underscored the need for courts to interpret service rules in a manner that ensures timely completion of selection processes and appointment of the most suitable candidates.

The Court observed that a substantial number of service-related disputes across the country are aggravated by repeated rounds of litigation, leaving candidates trapped in uncertainty for years. The judiciary, it said, must remain alive to these practical realities while deciding service matters, and avoid interpretations that prevent recruitment processes from attaining finality.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed :

"From our combined experience on the Bench, we may safely observe that a substantial number of service-related disputes pending across the country are aggravated by protracted and recurring litigation, resulting in a state of perpetual flux for many candidates across the country. The judiciary would do well to remain circumspect of these practical realities, and interpret service rules in a manner that furthers the very object of a selection process, that is, the selection of the most suitable candidates from suitable candidates for appointment in a timely manner."

The observations came while allowing three civil appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and setting aside a series of Rajasthan High Court orders that had directed appointment or consideration of candidates from expired waiting or reserve lists.

Background  

The appeals arose from three different recruitment cycles conducted by the RPSC for the posts of Junior Legal Officer and Assistant Statistical Officer. In each case, after the select list was acted upon, some candidates did not join the posts offered to them. Candidates placed in the reserve lists approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking appointment against such non-joining vacancies.

Single Judges of the High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that the right of candidates in the waiting list revived upon non-joining of selected candidates. The Division Bench dismissed RPSC's intra-court appeals, largely on the reasoning that the State of Rajasthan had not challenged the Single Judge orders.

Reversing the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court held that the RPSC, as a constitutional authority under Articles 315 and 320, had full locus standi to maintain writ appeals even if the State had chosen not to appeal.

The Court noted that no appointment can be made without a recommendation from the Public Service Commission. Directions compelling appointment from a waiting list directly affected the Commission's statutory functions, making it a “person aggrieved” entitled to challenge the orders.

Waiting List Is Not A Source Of Recruitment

On merits, the Court reiterated settled law that a waiting or reserve list is not an independent or perpetual source of recruitment. Candidates in a waiting list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment and can be considered only within the validity period prescribed by the recruitment rules.

Interpreting Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Legal State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1981 and Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, the Court held that reserve lists can be operated only within six months from the date the original select list is forwarded by the Commission to the appointing authority, or at best from the date of the last such forwarding.

The High Court, the Bench held, committed a clear error in computing the six-month period from the date of cancellation of appointment or refusal to join by selected candidates, which in all three cases occurred after the reserve lists had expired.

The Supreme Court also noted that the writ petitions themselves were filed after the expiry of the reserve lists. Since no subsisting legal right existed on the date of filing, the High Court could not have issued a writ of mandamus directing appointment or consideration from the expired lists.

Claims of parity based on instances where appointments were allegedly made from expired lists were rejected, with the Court reiterating that Article 14 does not recognise “negative equality” and that illegality cannot be perpetuated on the ground that it was committed in other cases.

Allowing all three appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both the Single Judges and the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. While expressing sympathy for the candidates who had litigated for years, the Court held that appointments contrary to statutory recruitment rules cannot be sustained.

Headnote

Service Law – Recruitment – Reserve List/Waiting List – Validity Period – Locus Standi of Public Service Commission (PSC) – The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Rajasthan High Court which had directed the appointment of wait listed candidates after the statutory expiry of the reserve list – Supreme Court noted down following points- i. Locus Standi of PSC to Appeal - held that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) has the locus standi to maintain a writ appeal even if the State (Appointing Authority) does not challenge the order - As a constitutional body under Article 315, the PSC is a "person aggrieved" when judicial directions mandate recommendations that bypass statutory rules or its independent advisory role; ii. Nature of Waiting List: A waiting list is not a perennial source of recruitment and does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment - Its purpose is to address contingencies such as non-joining of selected candidates within the same recruitment cycle; iii. Operation and Expiry of Reserve List (Rule 24/Rule 21): Under Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Legal State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1981, and Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, the reserve list remains valid for only six months from the date the original list is forwarded to the Appointing Authority; iv. held that the period of validity must be calculated from the date of recommendation, not from the date a vacancy arises due to non-joining; v. Mandamus cannot be issued to "pick up" names from a list that has already expired by the time the writ petition is filed – Supreme Court rejected the plea that because some candidates were recommended after the expiry of the list, others must also be recommended - Article 14 constitutes a positive concept; a court cannot mandate the State to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity committed in favour of others – Appeals allowed. [Relied on U.P. Public Service Commission v. Surendra Kumar, (2018) 10 SCC 535; A.P. Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath, (2009) 5 SCC 1; Tinku v. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 72; Paras 46-90]

 Case : Rajasthan Public Service Commission v Yati Jain and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Click here to read the judgment