The Supreme Court has ruled that candidates included in a waiting or reserve list do not possess an indefeasible right to appointment. Such appointments can be made only when recruitment rules expressly permit them in specified and exceptional circumstances.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment stating that candidates included in the waiting or reserve list have no legal right to appointment, much less an indefeasible (unchallengeable) right. This principle applies unless the recruitment rules explicitly permit appointment from the waiting list under exceptional circumstances.
This ruling came in three consolidated appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) against the Rajasthan High Court decisions that had ordered appointments from the waiting list.
The apex court unequivocally stated:
“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 appointments therefrom in the specified exceptional circumstances…”
The Court emphasized:
“What should be given primacy… is the nature and extent of right prescribed by the relevant rules.”
Background of the Case
The case involved three separate candidates who were placed on the reserve list for different posts:
- Junior Legal Officer (JLO)
- Assistant Statistical Officer (ASO)
- Junior Legal Officer (JLO)
Each candidate approached the High Court seeking a direction to appoint them from the waiting list due to vacancies caused by non-joining candidates.
The High Court issued orders directing the State to appoint these waiting list candidates. The RPSC challenged these orders in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
1. Waiting List Candidates Have No Right of Appointment
The Supreme Court emphasized that a waiting list candidate does not enjoy a better right than a candidate in the main merit list. The Court stated:
“When a candidate included in a select/merit list has no indefeasible right of appointment, it would be too far-fetched to think that a candidate in the waiting/reserve list would have a better right.”
This comparison highlights that a waiting list candidate stands on a weaker legal footing than even a candidate on the main merit list, which itself does not guarantee a job.
2. Appointment is Possible Only If Rules Allow
A waiting list candidate can only be appointed if:
- Recruitment rules permit appointment from the waiting list, and
- The waiting list has not expired, and
- The appointing authority unjustifiably refuses to appoint.
3. Writ Petition Not Maintainable After Expiry
The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained writ petitions when the waiting list had already expired. Hence, the petitioners had no legal right to seek mandamus for appointment.
Under Rajasthan Service Rules applicable to the recruitments, reserve lists have a limited validity period (typically six months) after the main list is forwarded to the appointing authority. After this statutory period expires, the waiting list ceases to operate and cannot be revived by a court order.
The Court also addressed whether RPSC could challenge High Court orders even when the State Government did not oppose those orders. The bench held that a direction compelling appointment from a waiting list directly affects the statutory functions of the Commission and therefore the RPSC had locus standi (legal standing) to appeal.
The Supreme Court allowed the RPSC’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s orders, and confirmed that:
- The High Court erred in directing appointments from the waiting list.
- Waiting list candidates cannot claim any right unless the rules expressly allow it.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court orders, and clarified:
- Candidates on reserve/waiting lists have no indefeasible or absolute right to appointment.
- Appointment from waiting lists is possible only if the governing recruitment rules expressly allow it in specified circumstances and within the validity period.
- High Courts committed a legal error by directing appointments from expired waiting lists.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Yuvraj Samant, Neha Amola, AOR Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Advocate Keshav Thakur
Respondent: Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, AOR Ronak Karanpuria, Advocates N. Sai Kaushal, Abhimanyu Yaduvanshi, Prasad Hegde, Veda Singh, AOR S. Udaya Kumar Sagar
Case Title:
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer v. Yati Jain & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2026
READ JUDGMENT