Supreme Court: The instant batch of civil appeals raised an important question concerning the nature, scope and legal enforceability of a waiting/reserve list prepared in public recruitment. In the appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service challenging the judgments of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court affirming the orders of the Single Judges directing the appointment or consideration of wait-listed candidates against vacancies arising on account of non-joining of selected candidates, a Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Augustine George Masih, JJ., allowed all three appeals and set aside the impugned judgments of the Division Bench and the Single Judges. The Court held that —
-
The RPSC had locus standi to maintain the writ appeals.
-
A Wait-listed candidate has no vested right or indefeasible right of appointment.
-
The six-month statutory validity period cannot be computed from the date of non-joining or cancellation of appointment beyond the prescribed period.
-
In absence of requisition, no mandamus could be issued to recommend candidates from the reserve list.
Factual Matrix
The respective disputes stemmed from advertisements issued by the RPSC for recruitment of Junior Legal Officer (JLO) and Assistant Statistical Officer (ASO). The result of selection was declared on 15-04-2021, 13-08-2021 and 23-11-2015 and a provisional reserve list was prepared.
The Appointing Authority informed the RPSC that some candidates had not joined and requested recommendation of further names from the reserve list. Accordingly, candidates from the reserve list were recommended, However the petitioners where not among them.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking cancellation of the appointment of the candidate who had not joined despite receiving an offer, and for a direction to requisition their name from the reserve list.
The Single Judge allowed the respective writ petitions and directed the respondents to pick up name of petitioner from the reserve list to consider her candidature for appointment on the post fallen vacant due to non joining of candidates.
The Division Bench dismissed the writ filed by the RPSC and observed that the writ petitioners had approached the Court within six months from the date of non-joining of the selected candidates and that the State of Rajasthan had not preferred any appeal.
The three civil appeals arise out of separate but similar judgments of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, the Supreme Court proposed to decide all the three appeals by a common judgment.
Moot Points
-
Whether the RPSC had locus standi as a “person aggrieved” to maintain the writ appeals?
-
What is a waiting list and when does the right of a wait-listed candidate to be considered for appointment accrue?
-
Whether, in absence of a requisition from the Appointing Authority, the High Court could issue a mandamus to “pick up” names from the waiting/reserve list?
-
Whether the impugned judgments of the Single Judges and the Division Bench were sustainable in law?
Statutory Framework
Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Legal State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1981 and Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (identically worded) provide that —
“The Commission may, on requisition, recommend the names of such candidates in the order of merit to the appointing authority within six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Appointing Authority.”
Court’s Analysis
Locus Standi of RPSC
The Court held that the RPSC is a constitutional functionary under Articles
The Court opined that the Division Bench erred in holding that the appeals were not maintainable merely because the State had not appealed. The Court held that the RPSC was a “person aggrieved” and competent to maintain the writ appeals.
“The question of maintainability of the “Special Appeals” before the Division Bench is, thus, answered in favour of the appellant.”
Nature of a Waiting/Reserve List
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the jurisprudence governing waiting lists, and reiterated that a waiting list is “not a perennial source of recruitment.” Relying upon a long line of decisions, including Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. v. State of Gujarat, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591; Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1997) 8 SCC 488; M.P. Electricity Board v. Virendra Kumar Sharma, (2002) 9 SCC 650 and U.P. PSC v. Surendra Kumar, (2019) 2 SCC 195, the Court deduced that —
-
a waiting list is normally prepared after the select/merit list is drawn;
-
it would include candidates who have qualified the recruitment examination but are not so meritorious such that they can be immediately appointed on the number of vacancies advertised;
-
such list would operate like a merit-based queue for vacancies that remain unfilled after offers of appointment given to the candidates in the select/merit list are not accepted;
-
a waiting list has a limited validity period;
-
validity period of a waiting list depends on the recruitment rules and should no such period be mentioned, it can bona fide be operated till the next advertisement is issued without, however, violating provisions in such rules, if any, requiring recruitment process to be initiated either semi-annually or annually; and
-
an opportunity to a candidate in the waiting list for securing appointment arises only when vacancies remain unfilled after the process of appointing candidates from the select/merit list is over and hence, it is regarded as a procedural outcome which is part of a structured process rather than a fortuitous circumstance.
The Court emphatically stated that “a candidate figuring in the waiting list cannot claim a better right than those who find place in the select/merit list.” The Court held that a wait-listed candidate has “no right of appointment, much less an indefeasible right,” except when the governing recruitment rules permit a small window authorising appointment in the specified exceptional circumstances and the appointing authority without any good reason, denies or refuses an appointment and the waiting list has not expired.
Computation of Six-Month Validity Period
Interpreting Rule 24 and Rule 21, the Court held that the six-month period is to be computed from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission, or at best from the date of the last part of the original recommendation. The Court stated that the period cannot be counted from the date when a selected candidate refuses to join or when his appointment is cancelled, if such event occurs beyond the six-month statutory window.
The Court rejected the respondents’ plea for a purposive interpretation extending the life of the reserve list beyond the statutorily prescribed period. The Court held that the rules “admit of no confusion” and that the six-month limitation is intended “to bring about a quietus to the process of selection.” The Court observed that counting the validity from the date of non-joining would render the recruitment process interminable.
“If one were to approve the approach taken by the Single Judges, no selection process would ever attain finality. The six-month limitation incorporated in the applicable rule is designed precisely to bring about a quietus to the process of selection.”
Absence of Requisition
The Court held that where recruitment is through a Public Service Commission, recommendations must be preceded by requisition from the Appointing Authority. Even if cancellation of appointment takes place during the currency of the waiting list, unless a requisition is made, the Commission is not bound to recommend any candidate. Therefore, in absence of requisition, the High Court could not have issued a mandamus to “pick up” names from the waiting/reserve list.
Decision on Individual Claims
Petitioner 1
The Court held that the reserve list, at the highest, could remain alive till 06-02-2022. The cancellation of appointment on 14-07-2022 did not revive the expired reserve list. The petitioner had approached the Court when the reserve list was no longer valid.
Petitioner 2
The Court held that the six-month period had to be counted from 13-08-2021, the date of recommendation of the select list. The department had not even requisitioned any name from the RPSC for filling the vacancy caused by non-joining of the candidate. The Single Judge erred in counting six months from the date of cancellation of appointment.
Petitioner 3
The Court held that the reserve list had expired long before the writ petition was filed. Recommendations made from an expired list could not form the basis of a claim for appointment. The Court held that the Single Judge’s direction for consideration of his candidature was “plainly not permissible”.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that a wait-listed candidate has no vested right to appointment. The waiting/reserve list is not a source of recruitment and can be operated only within the statutorily prescribed period and only upon requisition by the appointing authority. Once the reserve list expires, its life cannot be revived on the ground of subsequent non-joining or cancellation of appointment.
The Court held that the Single Judges and the Division Bench had committed manifest error in law as the writ petitions could not have been entertained since the reserve lists had expired on the dates when the writ petitions were presented.
The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court.
[Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yati Jain, Civil Appeal Nos. 273, 274 and 275 of 2026, Decided on 15-01-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Dipankar Datta