The Allahabad High Court has ruled that inclusion in a waiting list does not confer any enforceable right to appointment. The court held that teacher recruitment processes cannot be prolonged indefinitely and authorities are not bound to expand waiting lists.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has clarified a crucial aspect of teacher recruitment in Uttar Pradesh, ruling that candidates on a waiting list have no enforceable right to appointment. The court also emphasized that recruitment authorities are not legally bound to prepare waiting lists up to 25% of advertised vacancies. This ruling has significant implications for teacher aspirants and recruitment policy in government-aided schools.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the 2016 recruitment drive for Assistant Teachers (LT Grade) in aided secondary schools in Uttar Pradesh. The recruitment was conducted by the then U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board under Advertisement No. 01/2016, which notified 7,950 posts across 22 subjects.
After clearing the written exam, candidates attended interviews in 2020, and the final results were declared between December 2020 and July 2021. Some candidates, however, neither made it to the main select list nor the initial waiting list, which was limited to 10% of selected candidates.
The petitioners approached the court, claiming that several posts remained vacant and sought expansion of the waiting list and consideration for appointment.
Legal Journey and Court Observations
The matter has a long and complex history. In 2022, the Allahabad High Court initially directed that vacant posts be filled through supplementary panels drawn from the existing waiting list. This approach was later modified by a division bench, which required the state first to verify unfilled vacancies across districts and then invite eligible candidates to submit their options before preparing a fresh panel.
During this period, the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, came into force, replacing the earlier Selection Board with a new Commission. In February 2025, the court intervened once again, instructing the Commission to examine whether the waiting list could be expanded to cover up to 25% of vacancies, as permitted under Rule 12(8) of the 1998 Rules.
In response, on May 16, 2025, the Commission concluded that there was no requirement to enlarge the existing waiting list, clarifying that the rule sets a maximum limit but does not impose a mandatory threshold.
Court’s Findings
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery of the Allahabad High Court dismissed all writ petitions, emphasizing:
- Discretionary Nature of Waiting Lists: Rule 12(8) allows a maximum of 25% but does not mandate preparing a waiting list of that size.
- No Enforceable Right to Appointment: Being on a waiting list does not confer an indefeasible right to employment.
- Timely Conclusion of Recruitment: Recruitment processes cannot be extended indefinitely; they must attain finality within a reasonable timeframe.
- Lack of Uniformity Not Illegal: Although a uniform criterion is desirable, variations in waiting list percentages do not render the decision arbitrary.
- No Malafide Action: Petitioners failed to show any statutory violation or ill intent by the authorities.
Case Title:
Nitish Maurya And 4 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
WRIT – A No. – 7520 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT