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.

 Case : Rajasthan Public Service Commission v Yati Jain and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Click here to read the judgment