Notification For Vacancies Only An Invitation To Apply, Not A Guarantee Of Appointment: J&K High Court

Reiterating the legal position that a candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely by participating in the recruitment process, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a writ petition filed by Sushant Khajuria, an unsuccessful aspirant for the post of Probationary Officer (PO) in Jammu and Kashmir Bank.Quoting the Supreme Court, Justice Javed Iqbal Wani emphasized in its opening observation, “Ordinarily, the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply… they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.”Justice Wani made these observations while disposing of a petition wherein the petitioner, Sushant Khajuria, claimed that he was not appointed as a PO despite participating in the recruitment process initiated by the J&K Bank. He had stated that out of 175 notified vacancies, only 138 candidates were ultimately appointed and a waiting list of 18 was prepared, of which 16 joined. Claiming to have secured higher merit than some appointed candidates, Khajuria argued that he ought to have been considered for one of the 37 unfilled posts. He further contended that his representation was ignored by the Bank, leaving him no option but to seek judicial intervention.Represented by Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG, strongly opposed the petition. It was submitted that the petitioner secured 61.22 marks, falling short of the cutoff for both the main select list and the waiting list, wherein the last candidates had secured 61.65 and 61.27 marks respectively. It was also pointed out that the selection process, governed strictly by the terms of the advertisement, did not permit appointments beyond the notified select and waiting lists. The waiting list had automatically expired on 31.03.2021, they added. Observations Of The Court:Justice Wani, after considering the rival contentions and the record, held that the core question was whether the petitioner had any legally enforceable right to seek selection and appointment.Referring to the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, the Court reiterated, “It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified… the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed... Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.”The Court also cited State of Orissa vs. Bhikari Charan Khuntia (2003) 10 SCC 144, reinforcing that, “Whether to fill or not to fill up a post is a policy decision and unless it is arbitrary, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with such decision.”Upon examining the facts, the Court noted that the petitioner never figured in the select or waiting list as he secured 61.22 marks, lower than the last candidate in the waiting list (61.27). Having participated voluntarily under clear terms, the petitioner cannot later seek to challenge or modify those terms, Justice Wani stated and categorically ruled, “Undoubtedly, the petitioner has neither figured in the select list nor in the waiting list, as such, the petitioner cannot, in law, seek his selection and appointment against the leftover vacancies...”Finding the petition “grossly misconceived,” the Court dismissed it along with the connected application. Case Title: Sushant Khajuria Vs J&K Bank Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 259Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Notification For Vacancies Only An Invitation To Apply, Not A Guarantee Of Appointment: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags