The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of administrative law: selection in a final merit list cannot be arbitrarily withheld. In a decisive ruling, the Court directed the immediate appointment of 19 petitioners who had successfully cleared a 2019 recruitment drive for Veterinary Officers, emphasizing that eligibility and merit must translate into substantive rights absent any lawful justification for denial.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, all qualified medical professionals, participated in a competitive recruitment process for the post of Veterinary Officer under the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Rules, 1963. A total of 900 vacancies were notified in 2019, including backlog positions. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) conducted screening and interviews in accordance with Rule 19 of the Rules. All petitioners were declared successful in the shortlisting process on 26.11.2020, cleared document verification, and secured positions in the final select list issued on 03.08.2024, which included 777 recommended candidates.
Procedural History
- 2019: Advertisement issued for 900 Veterinary Officer posts
- 2020: Petitioners cleared screening and interview
- 2024: Final select list published; petitioners included
- 2025: Petitioners filed writ petition after appointments were made to similarly situated candidates but not to them
- 2025: Fresh recruitment advertisement issued for 2025 cycle, prompting allegations of prejudice
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to:
- Appoint them without discrimination
- Prioritize appointments under the 2019 recruitment before initiating new recruitment
- Grant consequential benefits including seniority and notional pay
The Parties' Positions
The petitioners contended that the non-appointment of selected candidates, while others in identical positions were appointed, violated Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. They cited precedents where Coordinate Benches had granted relief to similarly placed candidates.
The respondents argued that interim orders in other cases (S.B. CWP No. 8568/2024 and D.B. Special Appeal No. 126/2025) had restrained appointments. They further claimed that the Supreme Court’s interim order in SLPs 23653-23655/2023 had created procedural uncertainty.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the mere selection of candidates in a final merit list under statutory recruitment rules creates a legitimate expectation of appointment, and whether refusal to appoint without reason, while others are appointed, violates principles of equality and non-arbitrariness under the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh and Union of India v. Rameshwar Prasad to argue that once a candidate is selected in a final list under a transparent, rule-based process, the state cannot withhold appointment arbitrarily. They emphasized that no statutory bar or disqualification existed against them, and that equal treatment demanded identical relief for similarly situated candidates. They also cited K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to underscore that procedural fairness requires reasoned decisions.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that interim orders in pending litigation had created a legal impediment to appointments. They argued that the Supreme Court’s interim order in SLPs 23653-23655/2023 had suspended appointments pending resolution of broader issues. However, they conceded that the SLPs had since been dismissed on 02.04.2025, removing any legal barrier.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the respondents’ reliance on interim orders, noting that those orders pertained to entirely different litigation and did not bind the petitioners. The Court observed that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLPs on 02.04.2025 had effectively lifted any restraint on appointments. The Court held that selection in a final merit list under statutory rules creates a legitimate expectation, and non-appointment without reason constitutes arbitrariness.
"Where candidates have been selected in accordance with the rules, and others similarly placed have been appointed, denial of appointment to the petitioners without any intelligible differentia or reasonable classification violates the mandate of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution."
The Court further clarified that the issuance of a fresh recruitment advertisement in 2025 could not override the rights of candidates selected under the 2019 process. The principle of first-in-time, first-in-right governs such matters. The Court emphasized that administrative convenience cannot override constitutional rights.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The Court held that selection in a final merit list under statutory recruitment rules creates an enforceable right to appointment, absent lawful disqualification. The respondents were directed to issue appointment orders to all petitioners within 60 days, with notional benefits from the date of appointment of similarly situated candidates.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Appointment Cannot Be Delayed on Grounds of Administrative Convenience
- Practitioners must now argue that delayed appointment after final selection is per se arbitrary unless justified by a statutory bar or proven misconduct
- Merely citing pending litigation or internal reviews is insufficient if the legal impediment has been removed
- The burden shifts to the state to prove a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for non-appointment
Notional Benefits Are Enforceable Even Without Back Pay
- Candidates are entitled to notional seniority from the date of appointment of similarly placed candidates
- This ensures parity in promotion, pension, and service benefits
- Practitioners should routinely seek notional benefits in writ petitions involving delayed appointments
Fresh Recruitment Cannot Override Prior Selections
- A new recruitment drive cannot be used to negate rights accrued under an earlier, completed process
- Courts will not permit the state to "reset" the clock to avoid fulfilling prior commitments
- This prevents abuse of power through successive advertisements to bypass merit lists
