Revival of Stale Waiting List Denies Equal Opportunity | Punjab and Haryana HC Says Selection Cannot Remain Open Indefinitely and Violates Article 14
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that candidates not recommended by the Selection Commission do not acquire any enforceable right to appointment, even against unfilled advertised posts. Dismissing the petition, the Court recorded that there was no legal flaw in the respondents’ action and that the petitioners’ marks were lower than the last selected candidate in the relevant category. It also held that the selection process could not be kept open-ended and denied the plea to revise the waiting list. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed in its entirety.
The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Haryana, which declined their claim for appointment to the post of Forest Guard. The petitioners belonged to the Backward Class ‘B’ (BC-B) category and contended that they were denied appointment despite being eligible and having participated in the recruitment process advertised via Notification No. 1 dated 06.03.2013 for 471 Forest Guard posts. Among these, 86 posts were reserved for the BC-B category.
According to the petition, both petitioners—Naresh Kumar and Pushpender—were called for the interview and physical efficiency test after securing qualifying scores. However, they were not included in the final merit list released on 11.07.2014. Their scores were recorded as 117.40, while the cut-off for selection in the BC-B category was 117.60.
The non-selection of the petitioners led to a series of litigations, starting with a 2016 writ petition filed by waiting list candidates in Shambu & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (CWP No. 23762 of 2016). In that case, it was argued that several reserved category candidates with higher marks than general category candidates should have been considered under the general category, in line with Haryana Government’s Notification dated 25.06.1997.
In response, the State filed an affidavit confirming that candidates from SC and BC categories securing merit above the general category cut-off should be shifted to the open category. The Court directed the State to act accordingly, leading to the formation of a compliance committee on 24.08.2020. The committee concluded that 40 candidates from reserved categories should be shifted to the general category, thereby freeing up an equal number of posts in the respective reserved categories.
The petitioners contended that while the merit list was revised in accordance with the compliance committee’s recommendations, the waiting list was not. They submitted that as 17 BC-B category candidates were moved to the general category, an equal number of waiting list candidates in BC-B should have been appointed in their place. The petitioners also stated that despite some of the newly appointed candidates failing to join, the vacant posts were not filled, although the petitioners had undergone the entire recruitment process.
They cited the judgment in Arun Singh & Others v. State of Haryana & Another (CWP No. 25682 of 2014) where this Court held that candidates in the zone of consideration were entitled to appointment if selected candidates did not join. The said decision was upheld in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2435 of 2017.
The petitioners stated that five appointments were made in October 2020, six in February 2022, three in May 2024, and five more in June 2024, totaling 19 post-selection appointments. They claimed that as nine vacancies remained unfilled and they were next in the waiting list, their exclusion was arbitrary and unjustified.
In response, the State submitted that the petitioners' marks were below the cut-off in the revised merit list and that there was no right in law to seek appointment against vacant posts unless recommended by the Commission.
The Court found that the petitioners' claim lacked merit. Even by the petitioners' own account, following the revision of the merit list, 17 posts in the BC 'B' category became available, out of which 10 candidates joined, leaving 9 posts unfilled. However, the petitioners also stated that 19 additional appointments were made. This admission negated their own contention regarding the availability of 9 vacant posts, as the stated facts contradicted the claim.
The Court noted that the recruitment process is not meant to be open-ended to allow for indefinite expansion of the waiting list or its revision. It observed that the petitioners did not have any enforceable right to claim appointment against the vacant posts, as they were not among the candidates recommended in the waiting list by the Commission.
Reference was made to the decision in State of Karnataka and others v. Smt. Bharathi S., where the Supreme Court held that the inclusion of a candidate in an Additional List does not create a right or corresponding obligation for appointment. The mere publication of such a list does not confer a right to be appointed, as there is no such requirement under the applicable rules.
The Court further stated that, as observed in paragraph 7 of that judgment, even successful candidates do not acquire a vested right to appointment unless the relevant recruitment rules explicitly provide otherwise. The State is under no legal obligation to fill all or any of the vacancies unless mandated by those rules.
In its judgment dated 06.02.2025 in CWP No. 2046 of 2020, the Court had clarified that no person shall be offered appointment, even against an advertised post, if his or her name is not recommended by the Commission. Appointments may only be made to the extent of the number of advertised posts, and only in favour of candidates whose names have been duly recommended.
Accordingly, the petitioners had no right to seek appointment against the vacant posts, as doing so would contravene statutory provisions. The Court underscored that selection processes must have a defined conclusion. Leaving them open indefinitely would compromise the essential principles of certainty and finality in public administration.
An ongoing selection process, the Court added, also breaches Article 14 of the Constitution by causing unequal treatment among candidates and denying future applicants a fair opportunity. The recruitment process in question dated back to 2014, and with over a decade having passed, the list had become stale. In the meantime, numerous individuals would have already been appointed through other selection processes.
The Court concluded by stating that it does not extend relief to passive litigants. A candidate who has accepted the outcome without timely challenge cannot revive their claim merely because another vigilant candidate later succeeded.
The Court, after considering the submissions and the factual matrix on record, concluded that there was no merit in the present case.
It held that the petitioners were not part of the recommended candidates for the waiting list and, therefore, had no legal right to claim appointment against the vacant posts. The Court stated that granting relief to the petitioners on the basis that a similarly placed, vigilant litigant had succeeded would be unwarranted.
It recorded that limitation arises from the cause of action and not from the date when a judgment or decree is passed in favour of another litigant. The Court cautioned that any alternative interpretation, based on sympathetic grounds, could lead to multiple unnecessary disputes involving service benefits, seniority, pay fixation, and promotions, particularly impacting those who may have joined service in the meantime.
It further observed that a Constitutional Court must exercise self-restraint in entertaining claims where the delay is not properly explained. In view of the above discussion, the Court held that the writ petition lacked merit and, therefore, stood dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents: State Counsel for Haryana (designation not individually listed in judgment)
Case Title: Naresh Kumar and Another v. State of Haryana and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:076104
Case Number: CWP-28755-2024
Bench: Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
[Read/Download order]
