Inadvertent Error In Recruitment Notice Doesn't Create Vested Right To Appointment When No Vacancy Exists: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had directed the appointment of a candidate on the basis of an erroneous recruitment advertisement where no actual vacancy existed for the reserved category.

A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan held that a mistake in the notification cannot create a vested right to appointment when no vacancy actually existed.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the National Institute of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases challenging the CAT's decision that had granted relief to a Scheduled Caste (SC) category candidate.

For context, the recruitment was to be carried out by Hindustan Life Care Limited, an outsourced agency. While issuing a recruitment notice for the post of HMTS Dietary (Kitchen Staff) at the Institute, an error was committed, and it was reflected that applications have been invited for 10 posts, including 03 posts of the SC category.

However, later it was clarified that there was no vacancy available in the SC category as the requisition was actually for 05 UR, 03 OBC, 01 ST and 01 EWS posts.

The CAT had proceeded on the footing that the recruitment advertisement indicated availability of an SC vacancy and that the candidate (Respondent), who was declared topper in the written examination, was therefore entitled to appointment with consequential benefits.

Allowing the Institute's petition, the High Court held that the existence of a sanctioned vacancy is a sine qua non for appointment and that no candidate can claim a right to be appointed merely because an advertisement mistakenly suggested the availability of a post.

“Undoubtedly, there was an error in publishing the recruitment notice, however, that does not create a vested right in favour of the Respondent to seek appointment, when no vacancy for the SC category is available till date,” it observed.

The Court added, "the Respondent cannot be permitted to stake a claim for appointment solely on the basis of a mistake committed while issuing recruitment notice. She may be entitled to some amount of damages, however, the same has not been claimed".

The Court further clarified that age relaxation granted to the candidate presupposes the existence of a corresponding reserved vacancy.

“The respondent is not entitled to age relaxation because under the UR category, for which the vacancies were advertised, the Respondent has already crossed the maximum age for appointment,” it said.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the CAT order but granted liberty to the Respondent to claim damages, if permissible in law.

For Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Kullar, Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri and Mr. Prakhar Khanna, Advs.

For Respondent: Mr. Suresh Sharma and Ms. Usha Sharma, Advs. Mr. Abhishek Saket, SPCG along with Mr. Amit Acharya, GP, Mr. Abhigyan, Ms. Reya Paul and Ms. Nidhi Singh. for R-2 and 3.

Case title: National Institute Of Tuberculosis And Respiratory Diseases v. Ms. Shweta & Ors

Case no.: W.P.(C) 527/2026

Click here to read order