Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Appointment from Waiting List After One Year. Waiting List Candidates Have No Vested Right to Appointment After Expiry of One Year from Publication of Select List.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 65
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, three individuals, were placed in the waiting list for the post of Health Worker (Male) (Sprayer) under the open category pursuant to an advertisement dated 25 April 2012 issued by Respondent No.1. The petitioners appeared for an interview on 29 May 2012 and their names were listed in the waiting list published by Respondents 2 and 3. However, due to faults in the experience certificates of 11 selected candidates, the respondents could not fill the posts. The petitioners made a representation on 16 September 2013 seeking appointment from the waiting list. The respondents did not act on it. The petitioners filed a writ petition on 11 February 2014 seeking appointment. The court considered the legal position that waiting list candidates have no vested right to appointment after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the select list. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that the right to appointment from a waiting list is not indefeasible and that the waiting list lapses after one year. The court noted that the petitioners' representation was made after one year and that the respondents had valid reasons for not filling the posts. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners cannot claim appointment after the lapse of one year.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Appointment from Waiting List - Vested Right - Waiting list candidates have no vested right to appointment after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the select list - The petitioners were in the waiting list for the post of Health Worker (Male) (Sprayer) pursuant to an advertisement dated 25/04/2012 - The respondents did not appoint them within one year - The court held that the waiting list lapses after one year and the petitioners cannot claim appointment thereafter - The principle of legitimate expectation is not applicable as the respondents had valid reasons for not filling the posts (Paras 3-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners, who were in the waiting list for the post of Health Worker (Male) (Sprayer), have a vested right to appointment after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the select list.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners have no vested right to appointment after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the select list.

Law Points

  • Waiting list candidates have no vested right to appointment after one year from publication of select list
  • The right to appointment from waiting list is not indefeasible
  • The appointing authority has discretion to fill vacancies from waiting list only within a reasonable period
  • The principle of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked after expiry of one year
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 158

WRIT PETITION NO. 1691 OF 2014

2016-08-08

Anoop V. Mohta, G. S. Kulkarni

Ms. Vaishali Jagdale for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjeev J. Rairkar for respondents 2 and 3, Mr. V. N. Sagare, AGP for respondent No.4

Mr. Datatraya Gajanan Shendkar & ors.

The President, District Selection Committee and ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking appointment from waiting list for the post of Health Worker (Male) (Sprayer).

Remedy Sought

The petitioners sought appointment on the post of Health Workers (Male) (Sprayer) under open category along with other benefits.

Filing Reason

The petitioners were in the waiting list but were not appointed within one year; they made a representation which was not acted upon.

Issues

Whether the petitioners have a vested right to appointment from the waiting list after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the select list.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioners argued that they were selected and placed in the waiting list and should be appointed to the vacant posts. The respondents contended that the waiting list lapses after one year and the petitioners have no right to appointment.

Ratio Decidendi

Waiting list candidates have no vested right to appointment after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the select list. The right to appointment from a waiting list is not indefeasible and the waiting list lapses after one year.

Judgment Excerpts

The Supreme Court in Kulwinder Pal Singh and anr v. State of Punjab and ors observed as under : “10 ... the right to appointment from a waiting list is not indefeasible and the waiting list lapses after one year.”

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a writ petition on 11 February 2014 seeking appointment from the waiting list. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 8 August 2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Gujarat Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim Due to Inadequate Income Assessment and Non-Award of Consortium. Tribunal's Notional Income of Rs.7,500/- per month set aside; Minimum wages applied and consortium granted under Moto...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Appointment from Waiting List After One Year. Waiting List Candidates Have No Vested Right to Appointment After Expiry of One Year from Publication of Select List.