The Bombay High Court has clarified a critical aspect of service law concerning the preparation and operation of waiting lists in public recruitment. The judgment underscores that statutory authorities cannot evade their obligation to prepare a waiting list merely because a subsequent advertisement was issued, especially when a vacancy arises within the operative period of the earlier recruitment cycle. This ruling has significant implications for candidates contesting non-preparation of waiting lists and seeking appointment against vacancies arising from resignations or non-acceptance of offers.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Priyanka Mohan Abhivant, applied for the post of Assistant Section Officer (Group B) under the Scheduled Caste (Woman) category pursuant to Advertisement No. 5 of 2020 dated 20.02.2020, issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC). The petitioner secured the fourth rank in the Scheduled Caste (Woman) category with 252.50 marks in the Main Examination, whose result was declared on 30.11.2022. Despite her rank placing her within the zone of consideration for appointment, the MPSC failed to prepare or publish a waiting list.
Key Facts
20.02.2020: Advertisement No. 5 of 2020 issued for 67 posts of Assistant Section Officer, including 3 posts reserved for Scheduled Caste (Woman).
28.10.2021: MPSC issued Advertisement No. 249/2021 for substantially similar posts.
26.02.2022: Prelims for Advertisement No. 249/2021 held.
30.11.2022: Main result for Advertisement No. 5 of 2020 declared; petitioner secured fourth rank.
06.12.2022: Main result for Advertisement No. 249/2021 declared.
09.01.2023: Selected candidates pursuant to Advertisement No. 5 of 2020 joined service.
29.09.2023: Ms. Shraddha Tate, a selected candidate under the Scheduled Caste (Woman) category, resigned, creating a vacancy.
MPSC did not prepare a waiting list for Advertisement No. 5 of 2020 despite the vacancy arising within the operative period.
Procedural History
2024: Petitioner filed Original Application No. 965 of 2024 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Mumbai, challenging the non-preparation of the waiting list and seeking appointment against the vacancy.
16.06.2025: MAT dismissed the application, holding that the waiting list for Advertisement No. 5 of 2020 had lapsed upon the declaration of the result for Advertisement No. 249/2021 on 06.12.2022.
2025: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9720 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court challenging the MAT’s order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
Quashing of the MAT’s order dated 16.06.2025.
A direction to Respondent No. 2 (MPSC) to prepare a waiting/merit list pursuant to Advertisement No. 5 of 2020.
Appointment to the post of Assistant Section Officer (Group B) under the Scheduled Caste (Woman) category, which fell vacant on 29.09.2023.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the failure of the MPSC to prepare a waiting list pursuant to Advertisement No. 5 of 2020 could defeat the petitioner’s right to appointment when a vacancy arose within the operative period, particularly when the subsequent advertisement (No. 249/2021) was issued before the declaration of the result for the earlier advertisement.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The MAT erred in holding that the waiting list had lapsed, as no waiting list was ever prepared by the MPSC after the declaration of the result on 30.11.2022. The omission to prepare a list cannot be equated with a list having been prepared and then lapsed.
The Tribunal misconstrued Rule 10(8)(a) of the MPSC Rules and Standing Order No. 05 of 2016, which mandate the preparation of a waiting list for a period of one year from the date of declaration of the result or until the publication of a subsequent advertisement, whichever is earlier.
The vacancy arose due to the resignation of Ms. Shraddha Tate on 29.09.2023, who was appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. 5 of 2020. The MPSC’s failure to prepare a waiting list could not deprive the petitioner of her right to appointment.
The results of both advertisements were declared within seven days of each other (30.11.2022 and 06.12.2022), leaving no scope for the MPSC to prepare a waiting list. The Tribunal’s interpretation defeated the statutory purpose of Rule 10(8)(a).
For the Respondent/State
The waiting list had lapsed by operation of Rule 10(8)(a) of the MPSC Rules and Standing Order No. 05 of 2016, which prescribe the duration of the waiting list’s validity.
The petitioner had no enforceable right to appointment, as the waiting list was not prepared and had lapsed upon the declaration of the result for Advertisement No. 249/2021.
The impugned order did not warrant interference, as the Tribunal’s interpretation of the Rules was correct.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a purposive interpretation of Rule 10(8)(a) of the MPSC Rules and Standing Order No. 05 of 2016, emphasizing the statutory intent behind the preparation of waiting lists. The Court observed:
"A meaningful reading of Rule 10 would clearly reveal that the Tribunal has only relied on the portion which states that the post had fallen vacant due to non-acceptance of the offer of appointment by the candidates recommended which shall be filled in through subsequent competitive examination. But at the same time, it overlooked the subsequent portion of the said Rule, which contemplates that when only single cadre is involved for the selection by competitive examination, the reserve list shall be maintained for a period of one year from the date of declaration of result or up to the publication of the subsequent Advertisement for recruitment to the same post, whichever is earlier."
The Court noted that the Tribunal misconstrued the Rule by failing to account for the peculiar factual matrix of the case:
The results of both advertisements were declared within seven days of each other, leaving no time for the MPSC to prepare a waiting list.
The vacancy arose on 29.09.2023 due to the resignation of Ms. Shraddha Tate, who was appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. 5 of 2020. This vacancy could not be filled through Advertisement No. 249/2021, as the latter was issued before the declaration of the result for the former.
The MPSC’s omission to prepare a waiting list could not be used as a technical ground to defeat the petitioner’s right to appointment, especially when the vacancy arose within the operative period of the earlier advertisement.
The Court held that the Tribunal’s judgment was perverse in law, as it failed to consider the chronology of events and the statutory obligation of the MPSC to prepare a waiting list. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Rule 10(8)(a) is to ensure that vacancies arising within the operative period are filled from the waiting list, and this purpose cannot be defeated by a technical interpretation of the Rule.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and passed the following orders:
The judgment and order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 965 of 2024 was quashed and set aside.
Respondent No. 2 (MPSC) was directed to prepare a waiting list for the post of Assistant Section Officer (Group B) pursuant to Advertisement No. 5 of 2020 within six weeks from the date of the judgment (13.07.2026).
The MPSC was further directed to recommend the petitioner’s name for appointment to the post of Assistant Section Officer under the Scheduled Caste (Woman) category, which fell vacant due to the resignation of Ms. Shraddha Tate on 29.09.2023.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Failure to Prepare Waiting List Cannot Defeat Statutory Rights
This judgment establishes that statutory authorities cannot evade their obligation to prepare a waiting list by relying on technicalities, such as the issuance of a subsequent advertisement. The Court’s purposive interpretation of Rule 10(8)(a) ensures that candidates are not deprived of their right to appointment merely because the authority failed to comply with its statutory duty.
Chronology of Events Is Crucial
The Court placed significant emphasis on the chronology of events, particularly the fact that the results of both advertisements were declared within seven days of each other. This left no scope for the MPSC to prepare a waiting list, and the Court refused to allow the authority to take advantage of its own omission. Practitioners should ensure that detailed timelines are presented to highlight such factual peculiarities.
Vacancies Must Be Filled from the Appropriate Recruitment Cycle
The judgment clarifies that vacancies arising from resignations or non-acceptance of offers must be filled from the waiting list of the relevant recruitment cycle, not from a subsequent advertisement issued before the declaration of the result for the earlier cycle. This principle prevents authorities from circumventing the waiting list requirement by issuing overlapping advertisements.
Actionable Takeaways for Practitioners
Always challenge non-preparation of waiting lists: If a statutory authority fails to prepare a waiting list, candidates should challenge this omission, especially when vacancies arise within the operative period.
Highlight factual peculiarities: Emphasize the chronology of events, such as overlapping recruitment cycles or vacancies arising from resignations, to demonstrate that the authority’s failure to prepare a waiting list cannot defeat the candidate’s rights.
Argue for purposive interpretation: Rely on the statutory purpose of the Rules to ensure that technical interpretations do not defeat substantive rights.
Seek compliance timelines: Where appropriate, seek specific directions for the preparation of waiting lists and appointment within a fixed timeline to ensure enforcement of the Court’s order.
