Case Note & Summary
Background — The matter arose from a recruitment process for 11 posts of Chief Inspectors in the State of Haryana. The State had requisitioned the Subordinate Selection Committee to make direct recruitment. The Committee categorized vacancies as 6 for general candidates, 2 for Scheduled Caste, 1 for Backward Class, and 2 for Ex-servicemen. It selected 11 candidates and also kept four more candidates on a waiting list. The respondents stood at serial numbers 8 to 11 in the overall merit list and admittedly belonged to the general category. They were not selected but were on the waiting list. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in Civil Writ Petition No. 17600 of 1991 etc., by order dated 04-08-1992, held that keeping candidates in the waiting list did not create any right in their favour in the posts, but if the State, for administrative exigencies, filled up posts on ad hoc basis, it was open to the State to appoint candidates waiting in the list in order of merit. The State of Haryana appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. Facts — The State's appeal was heard by a Division Bench. The State contended through its counsel Ms. Indu Malhotra that the waiting list had elapsed by efflux of time of one year, and the candidates who were waiting in the list had no right to claim appointment. It argued that the High Court was not right in directing appointment of candidates in the waiting list in the order of merit. The Supreme Court observed that it was true that the waiting list would be valid only for one year and on expiry thereof the waiting list would stand lapsed. However, the Court clarified that what the High Court appeared to have directed was that in the event of any ad hoc appointments being made to any existing vacancies, de hors the rules, the respondents would be considered for ad hoc appointment since their names were in the select list, provided the Government chooses to make such appointment. Thus, the direction was only an option and not a mandate. Legal Issues — The core legal questions were whether lapsed waiting list candidates had any right to appointment, and whether the High Court's direction to consider them for ad hoc appointments was illegal. Arguments — The State argued that the waiting list had lapsed after one year and no right survived. The respondents' position, as reflected in the High Court's order, was that they had no claim as of right but could be considered if the State made ad hoc appointments. The Supreme Court accepted the State's submission that no right existed but found no illegality in the High Court's enabling direction. Court's Analysis — The Court held that the waiting list was valid only for one year and stood lapsed thereafter. It interpreted the High Court order as not creating any right in favour of the respondents but merely enabling the State to consider their names for temporary ad hoc appointment pending regular recruitment, if the State chose to make such appointments de hors the rules. The Court emphasized that such consideration would not confer any right for future recruitment. It further clarified that the respondents, being general candidates, would be considered only against the quota reserved for general candidates. Decision — The Supreme Court found no illegality in the High Court's observations and disposed of the appeals accordingly. The final outcome was that the High Court's direction was upheld as an enabling option, with the clarification that any ad hoc appointment from the lapsed waiting list would be temporary, without future rights, and limited to the general category quota.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment and Selection - Waiting List Rights - Not mentioned - Waiting list candidates have no vested right to appointment, and a waiting list is valid only for one year and lapses thereafter. The High Court's direction that candidates in a lapsed waiting list may be considered for ad hoc appointment if the Government chooses to make such appointments de hors rules was held to be an enabling direction, not a mandate, and did not confer any future recruitment rights. Held that there was no illegality in the High Court's observations (Paras 2-3). B) Service Law - Reservation and Quota - General Category Candidates - Not mentioned - The respondents, being general candidates, were to be considered only against the quota reserved for general candidates and not against any reserved category posts. The Supreme Court clarified this limitation to prevent any encroachment on reserved vacancies. Held that the enabling direction to consider waiting list candidates for ad hoc appointment was subject to quota restrictions (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether candidates in a waiting list that has lapsed have any right to appointment, and whether the High Court erred in directing that they may be considered for ad hoc appointments.
Final Decision
Supreme Court found no illegality in High Court's observations and disposed of the appeals. Waiting list candidates have no vested right; but the State may choose to consider them for ad hoc appointments de hors rules pending regular recruitment, limited to general category quota.
Law Points
- Waiting list confers no vested right to appointment
- waiting list valid only for one year
- lapsed waiting list candidates may be considered for ad hoc appointment de hors rules if government chooses
- such ad hoc appointment does not confer future recruitment rights
- general category candidates only against general quota
