The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that a candidate on a waiting list acquires no vested right to appointment even if a selected candidate’s appointment is cancelled within the list’s validity period. The court emphasized that when the recruitment process itself is lawfully scrapped due to irregularities, the waiting list ceases to have legal force.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from the recruitment for the post of Assistant Librarian (Level-10) at the National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management (NIFTEM). The Institute issued an advertisement on 09.11.2020 inviting applications for direct recruitment. Two candidates emerged as central figures: Suman Kumari, who was selected and appointed, and Sonu Kumar, who stood at Serial No. 1 on the waiting list.
Key Facts
- The advertisement required candidates to possess five years’ experience in Library/Computerisation of Library in a reputed Educational Institute/Organization, with at least three years on a post in Level-6 pay scale of Rs. 35,400 - 1,12,400 (7th CPC) or equivalent.
- Suman Kumari was selected on 07.09.2023 and joined the post on 12.09.2023.
- A public grievance dated 20.09.2023 raised allegations of irregularities in her selection.
- Upon verification, NIFTEM found that Suman Kumari’s prior employment was on a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 19,535 (appointment letter dated 01.07.2016), later raised to Rs. 27,500 - significantly below Level-6 of the 7th CPC.
- She failed to produce pay slips or Income Tax Returns despite being asked, relying only on a certificate from her previous employer.
- The Board of Governors, in its 5th meeting held on 17.02.2024, accepted a committee’s recommendation to cancel her appointment and re-advertise the post.
- Sonu Kumar, who was ranked No. 1 on the waiting list, submitted representations on 28.02.2024 and 17.05.2024 seeking appointment.
- The waiting list was valid for one year from the date of result notification - i.e., until 06.09.2024.
- NIFTEM decided to re-advertise under new Recruitment Rules (RPR-2024), approved on 22.05.2024, citing procedural lapses including absence of an external member’s signature on the final recommendation.
Procedural History
- 09.11.2020: Advertisement issued for Assistant Librarian (Level-10).
- 07.09.2023: Result declared; Suman Kumari selected, Sonu Kumar ranked No. 1 on waiting list.
- 12.09.2023: Suman Kumari joined the post.
- 20.09.2023: Public grievance received alleging recruitment irregularities.
- 17.02.2024: Board of Governors resolved to cancel Suman Kumari’s appointment and re-advertise.
- 28.02.2024: Sonu Kumar submitted first representation seeking appointment.
- 27.02.2024: Order cancelling Suman Kumari’s appointment issued (Annexure P9).
- 17.05.2024: Sonu Kumar submitted second representation.
- 22.05.2024: Board approved RPR-2024 for re-advertisement.
- 12.06.2024: CWP-5546-2024 filed by Suman Kumari challenging cancellation.
- 15.06.2024: CWP-24450-2024 filed by Sonu Kumar seeking appointment.
- 07.03.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 30.04.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
Suman Kumari contended that her prior experience met the advertisement’s criteria because the requirement was for experience in a "reputed educational institute" - not necessarily a government or Pay Commission-bound institution. She argued that the nature of duties and designation, not pay scale equivalence, should determine eligibility, citing Union Government’s Office Memorandum dated 07.03.1984.
Sonu Kumar argued that since the cancellation occurred on 17.02.2024 - within the one-year validity of the waiting list (until 06.09.2024) - he had acquired a legitimate right to appointment as the next in merit.
NIFTEM countered that Suman Kumari failed to substantiate her claim of Level-6 experience with primary documents (pay slips/ITRs), and the recruitment process was vitiated by procedural lapses. Regarding Sonu, it argued that a waiting list confers no vested right and cannot survive the annulment of the entire recruitment process.
Relief Sought
- Suman Kumari sought quashing of the cancellation order and restoration of her appointment.
- Sonu Kumar sought a writ of mandamus directing his appointment as the next eligible candidate.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether cancellation of Suman Kumari’s appointment on grounds of non-compliance with experience criteria was legally justified; and (2) Whether a candidate ranked No. 1 on a waiting list acquires a vested right to appointment when the original selection is cancelled within the list’s validity period.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Suman Kumari’s counsel argued that the advertisement did not require the prior employer to be government-controlled or bound by Pay Commission scales. Reliance was placed on the Union Government’s 1984 Office Memorandum, which permits equivalence based on nature of duties and designation, not strict pay scale parity. It was submitted that the respondents’ demand for pay slips and ITRs was an unreasonable, hyper-technical condition not stipulated in the advertisement.
Sonu Kumar’s counsel contended that once the vacancy arose due to cancellation within the waiting list’s validity, his right to appointment crystallized. He cited principles of fairness and legitimate expectation, arguing that delay by the administration should not defeat a candidate’s rightful claim.
For the Respondent/State
NIFTEM’s counsel argued that the Level-6 pay scale requirement was a substantive eligibility criterion designed to ensure candidates had worked in institutions with structured pay and professional standards. The absence of pay slips or ITRs, despite specific request, rendered her claim unsubstantiated. The Board’s decision to cancel the entire recruitment was a bona fide policy response to irregularities, not targeted punishment.
Regarding Sonu, it was submitted that a waiting list is merely a facilitative tool, not a source of vested rights. Appointment from such lists is permissible only if the original recruitment remains valid. Once the process is scrapped, the list lapses.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a two-pronged analysis. First, it examined the validity of cancelling Suman Kumari’s appointment. The Court noted that while the advertisement did not explicitly require the prior employer to be government-funded or bound by the 7th CPC, it did require experience on a post in Level-6 pay scale - a quantifiable benchmark. The petitioner’s salary of Rs. 19,535 - 27,500 was demonstrably below the Level-6 range of Rs. 35,400 - 1,12,400. The failure to produce pay slips or ITRs, despite being asked, was deemed fatal to her claim.
"The petitioner neither demonstrated that she was actually placed in Level-6 nor produced the primary documentary proof (pay slips/ITRs) despite being specifically asked."
The Court held that the Board’s decision to cancel the appointment was not arbitrary but a reasonable response to credible evidence of non-compliance and procedural lapses, including the absence of an external member’s signature.
Second, the Court addressed Sonu Kumar’s claim. It reaffirmed the well-settled principle that a candidate on a waiting list has no vested or indefeasible right to appointment. A waiting list is not an "endless reservoir" of recruitment. The Court emphasized:
"Once the Board... has consciously decided to treat the recruitment as vitiated and to re-advertise the post, the very foundation on which the waiting list rests stands removed and in such a situation, no enforceable right can be claimed by any candidate from that list."
The Court rejected the argument that a right crystallizes upon cancellation within the validity period. The right to appointment, if any, is contingent on the continued validity of the recruitment process. When that process is lawfully annulled, the waiting list ceases to have legal effect.
The Verdict
Both writ petitions were dismissed. The Court upheld the cancellation of Suman Kumari’s appointment and rejected Sonu Kumar’s claim for appointment from the waiting list. The respondents were permitted to proceed with the re-advertisement under RPR-2024. The petitioners are free to apply afresh in the new recruitment process.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Waiting Lists Are Not Entitlements
- Practitioners must advise clients that inclusion in a waiting list creates only a hope or expectation, not a legal right.
- Appointment from a waiting list is always subject to the continued validity of the original recruitment process.
- Delay by the employer in acting on a waiting list does not convert a non-vested interest into a vested right.
Recruitment Cancellation Vitiates All Dependent Claims
- If a recruitment process is cancelled due to irregularities, even if done lawfully, all dependent claims - including those of waitlisted candidates - lapse.
- Courts will not compel appointment from a list derived from a process the authority has legitimately annulled.
- Re-advertisement is a valid administrative remedy to correct systemic flaws, even if it disadvantages candidates who were next in line.
Documentary Evidence Is Paramount
- For posts with pay-scale-based eligibility, primary documents like pay slips and ITRs are not optional - they are essential.
- Reliance on certificates alone, without corroborative financial records, will not satisfy objective criteria.
- Candidates must proactively maintain and produce verifiable proof of pay levels, especially when the requirement is quantified.
