The Supreme Court has ruled that candidates in a waiting or reserve list have no automatic right to appointment once the list expires. The Court also held that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission can challenge appointment orders even if the State government does not appeal.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has clearly said that a candidate whose name appears only in a waiting list or reserve list does not have an automatic or permanent right to get a government job, especially after the legal validity period of such a list has ended.
The Court also ruled that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) is fully entitled to challenge a High Court order directing appointment, even if the State Government itself has not filed any appeal.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed three civil appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, and set aside the judgments passed by the Rajasthan High Court.
The High Court had earlier directed either appointment or consideration of candidates whose names were in the reserve list, against vacancies created due to non-joining or cancellation of appointments of selected candidates.
The matter arose from three different recruitment processes conducted by the RPSC. In the Junior Legal Officer (JLO) Recruitment 2019, Yati Jain was placed in the reserve list. A vacancy arose when a selected candidate, Vikas Kumar, did not join the post.
The High Court directed the authorities to pick Yati Jain’s name from the reserve list and consider her for appointment. In the Assistant Statistical Officer (ASO) Recruitment 2018, Aakriti Saxena sought appointment after a selected candidate, Sunil Machhera, declined the job offer.
The High Court again directed consideration of her candidature. In the Junior Legal Officer Recruitment 2013–14, Vivek Kumar Meena approached the court after a selected candidate’s appointment was cancelled, and the High Court directed that his case be considered.
In all these cases, the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the candidates. When the RPSC challenged these orders, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals mainly on the ground that since the State of Rajasthan had not challenged the Single Judge’s orders, the appeals filed by the RPSC had “no force”.
Before the Supreme Court, the RPSC argued that the High Court had committed a serious error by dismissing its appeals only because the State Government had not appealed. It submitted that the RPSC is a constitutional authority with independent responsibilities under the Constitution.
It further pointed out that as per the applicable service rules, the waiting or reserve lists had already expired. Therefore, no direction could have been issued for appointment from an expired list.
The RPSC relied on Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Legal State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1981, and Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, both of which clearly limit the validity of reserve lists to six months.
On the other hand, the writ petitioners argued that a reserve list is meant to be used when selected candidates do not join. According to them, the rules should be interpreted in a practical and purposive manner.
They claimed that the six-month validity period should start either from the date the vacancy arises or from the date of the last appointment, and not merely from the date when the original list is sent to the appointing authority. They also contended that the RPSC had no locus standi to file appeals, as the determination of vacancies lies exclusively with the State Government.
The Supreme Court examined two main legal issues — whether the RPSC had the right to file appeals, and whether a wait-listed candidate has any enforceable right to appointment after the expiry of the reserve list.
On the issue of locus standi, the Court strongly disagreed with the reasoning adopted by the High Court. It noted that under Article 320 of the Constitution, the State Government can appoint only those candidates who are recommended by the Public Service Commission.
Therefore, any judicial direction asking the State to appoint a person who has not been recommended directly affects the statutory and constitutional role of the Commission.
Justice Datta, writing the judgment for the Bench, observed:
“Concomitantly, in our considered opinion, a direction to the State of Rajasthan to appoint a candidate from the waiting list who has not been recommended for appointment does give the appellant a legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on.”
The Court held that the RPSC clearly falls within the category of a “person aggrieved” and therefore has full locus standi to challenge such directions before an appellate court.
On the issue of rights of wait-listed candidates, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position that a waiting list is not a continuous or permanent source of recruitment. It exists only for a limited time and can be used only if the governing recruitment rules permit it, and only within the prescribed validity period.
After closely examining Rule 24 and Rule 21, the Court noted that both rules clearly state that a reserve list remains valid for six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded to the appointing authority.
The Bench held:
“We, thus, hold 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 authorizing appointments therefrom in the specified exceptional circumstances… and that too, when the waiting list has not expired.”
Applying these principles to the individual cases, the Court rejected all claims made by the respondents. In the case of Yati Jain, the Court found that the reserve list had expired on December 6, 2021, or at the latest by February 6, 2022. The vacancy arose only on July 14, 2022, when the appointment of Vikas Kumar was cancelled. The Court clearly held:
“Yati Jain, thus, had no right in law to claim that her name should have been recommended by the appellant once the appointment of the said Vikas Kumar was cancelled on 14th July, 2022.”
In the case of Aakriti Saxena, the Court noted that the six-month validity period ended in February 2022, while she approached the court only in April 2022. It was also recorded that the concerned department had never requested the RPSC to recommend any name for the vacant post. Hence, no relief could be granted.
As far as Vivek Kumar Meena was concerned, the Court found that the reserve list had expired as far back as August 2016. The direction issued by the Single Judge to consider his case was held to be completely illegal. The Court observed that such a direction was “plainly not permissible”.
The respondents also argued that in some other cases, candidates were appointed from the reserve list even after its expiry, and therefore they should be given the same benefit under Article 14 of the Constitution. Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court invoked the principle against negative equality and stated:
“The illegality in recommending some of the candidates figuring in the reserve list could not have been made the basis for issuance of a writ of mandamus citing Article 14 of the Constitution.”
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed all the appeals filed by the RPSC and set aside the judgments passed by the Rajasthan High Court. While expressing sympathy for the candidates, the Court made it clear that courts cannot override clear statutory rules.
ALSO READ: Rajasthan Paper Leak: High Court Cancels 2021 Sub-Inspector (SI) Recruitment Exam
The Bench concluded:
“Our sympathies are with the writ petitioners but the law being what it is, we hold that they may not be appointed on any of the posts for which they competed.”
In an epilogue, the Court advised judges to interpret service rules in a manner that helps complete recruitment processes on time and ensures certainty and discipline in public employment.
The RPSC was represented by Mr. Samant, while the respondents were represented by Mr. K. Parameshwar, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Ronak Karanpuria.
Case Title:
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs. Yati Jain & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2026,
SLP (Civil) No. 20366 of 2024.
Read Judgement:
Read More Reports On Rajasthan Public Service Commission
