The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed a foundational principle of administrative fairness: candidates selected under a prior recruitment drive cannot be indefinitely delayed in appointment while new recruitment processes proceed. This judgment resolves a systemic injustice faced by candidates who cleared all stages of selection but were left in limbo due to administrative inaction.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, 15 qualified candidates holding Doctor of Veterinary Science degrees, participated in the 2019 recruitment drive for the post of Veterinary Officer conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) under the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Rules, 1963. The recruitment was initiated through Advertisement No. 05/2019 dated 22.10.2019, which notified 900 vacancies, including backlog positions. The eligibility criteria required a Bachelor’s degree in Veterinary Science and proficiency in the prescribed regional language.
Key Facts
- The recruitment process included screening, written examination, and interview as mandated under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Rules, 1963
- The petitioners successfully cleared all stages and were declared qualified on 26.11.2020
- They underwent document verification and were included in the final select list dated 03.08.2024, which recommended 777 candidates for appointment
- The petitioners’ names appeared on this list at various merit positions
- Despite being selected, no appointment orders were issued to the petitioners
- Meanwhile, the respondents issued appointment orders to other candidates from the same select list
- A fresh recruitment process was initiated via Advertisement dated 17.07.2025 for the same post, creating a perception of discrimination
- The petitioners were not provided any reason for the non-appointment despite being similarly situated to those appointed
Procedural History
- 22.10.2019: Advertisement issued for 900 Veterinary Officer posts under Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Rules, 1963
- 26.11.2020: Petitioners declared successful in shortlisting
- 03.08.2024: Final select list published by RPSC, including all petitioners
- 09.01.2025 & 07.03.2025: Interim orders passed in other cases (S.B. CWP No. 8568/2024 and D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 126/2025) allegedly cited as grounds for delay
- 17.07.2025: Fresh recruitment advertisement issued for Veterinary Officers, triggering petitioners’ grievance
- 2026: Writ Petition No. 3830/2026 filed before the Rajasthan High Court
- 19.02.2026: Coordinate Bench of the same Court decided Dr. Ganesh Lal Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (CWP No. 20049/2025), granting relief to similarly placed candidates
- 06.04.2026: Present petition heard and decided
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners: Argued that their selection under the 2019 process was valid, final, and binding. The non-appointment of petitioners while appointing others from the same list constituted arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. They contended that the interim orders cited by respondents were unrelated to their case and could not justify continued delay. They emphasized the Supreme Court’s order dated 31.05.2024 in SLP(C) Nos. 23653-23655/2023, which granted liberty to issue appointment letters.
For the Respondents: Contended that interim orders in other cases had restrained appointments, thereby preventing implementation of the 2024 select list. They argued that the fresh 2025 recruitment was necessary due to administrative exigencies.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- A writ of mandamus directing respondents to appoint them to the post of Veterinary Officer under the 2019 recruitment
- Direction to issue appointment orders to petitioners before proceeding with the 2025 recruitment
- Declaration that the non-appointment was discriminatory and violative of constitutional rights
- Any other relief deemed just by the Court
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether candidates who have been duly selected and included in a final select list under a lawful recruitment process can be denied appointment indefinitely, while similarly situated candidates are appointed and a new recruitment process is initiated, without any valid justification.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the coordinate bench’s decision in Dr. Ganesh Lal Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., which held that once a select list is finalized and candidates are found eligible, the state cannot withhold appointments arbitrarily. They cited State of U.P. v. Subhash Chandra and Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Ram Singh to establish that selection creates a legitimate expectation of appointment. They emphasized that the Supreme Court’s order dated 31.05.2024 explicitly permitted issuance of appointment letters, rendering the respondents’ claim of legal impediment baseless.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that interim orders passed in other litigation had created a legal bar on appointments. They contended that the 2025 recruitment was necessary due to vacancies arising from retirements and resignations, and that the delay in appointment was not intentional but procedural. They did not dispute the petitioners’ eligibility or merit position.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the respondents did not contest the petitioners’ selection, eligibility, or merit ranking. The only justification offered was the existence of interim orders in unrelated proceedings. However, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had, on 31.05.2024, granted liberty to the respondents to issue appointment letters, and that SLPs challenging the recruitment process were dismissed on 02.04.2025. Thus, the legal impediment cited by the respondents had ceased to exist.
"It is not open to the State to selectively implement a final select list by appointing some candidates while excluding others without assigning any reason, especially when the very same list is being used to fill vacancies in a new recruitment cycle."
The Court held that the principle of non-discrimination under Article 14 and the doctrine of legitimate expectation under Article 21 were clearly violated. The issuance of a fresh advertisement in 2025 while leaving selected candidates from the 2019 list unappointed amounted to arbitrariness and bad faith. The Court distinguished the interim orders relied upon by respondents, noting they pertained to different litigants and did not bind the petitioners.
The Court further emphasized that administrative convenience cannot override the rights of candidates who have cleared a transparent, merit-based selection process. The respondents’ failure to appoint petitioners despite having appointed others from the same list was indefensible.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed the respondents to issue appointment orders to all petitioners for the post of Veterinary Officer under the 2019 recruitment, with all consequential benefits, within 30 days of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioners shall be granted notional benefits from the date on which similarly situated candidates were appointed, but shall not be entitled to actual monetary arrears. The application for impleadment was dismissed as infructuous. All pending applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Appointment from Final Select Lists Is Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must now argue that once a final select list is published under a lawful recruitment process, the state has a mandatory duty to appoint all eligible candidates
- Delay or selective implementation constitutes arbitrariness under Article 14
- Administrative convenience or pending litigation cannot justify non-appointment if legal barriers have been lifted
New Recruitment Cannot Override Prior Selection
- A fresh recruitment drive cannot be used to bypass or supersede a valid, existing select list
- Candidates from prior lists must be appointed before new recruitment begins, unless the prior list is lawfully cancelled or expired
- This prevents states from using new advertisements to circumvent judicial orders or avoid accountability
Legitimate Expectation Is Enforceable in Public Employment
-
Selection through a transparent process creates a legitimate expectation of appointment
-
This expectation is protected under Article 21 and cannot be arbitrarily denied
-
Courts will intervene where there is differential treatment among similarly placed candidates
-
Always verify whether interim orders cited by authorities are still operative or have been vacated
-
File applications for appointment immediately upon publication of a final select list
-
Cite Dr. Ganesh Lal Sharma and this judgment to counter delays in state appointments
