The Central Administrative Tribunal has clarified a critical principle in public employment law: once a candidate joins a post pursuant to a recruitment advertisement, the vacancy is deemed filled, and subsequent resignation does not revive the selection process or entitle a wait-listed candidate to appointment. This ruling reinforces the finality of recruitment outcomes and limits the scope of waiting lists to genuine non-joining scenarios.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Arun Chibber, was placed first on the waiting list for the post of Computer Operator under Advertisement Notice No. 05 of 2015 issued by the J&K Service Selection Board. The selected candidate, Mr. Varun Chalotra, joined the post but later resigned after being selected under an earlier advertisement (No. 01 of 2011) whose results were declared later. The petitioner sought appointment to the vacated position by operating the 2015 waiting list.
Procedural History
- 2011: Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2011 issued for Computer Operator posts
- 2015: Advertisement Notice No. 05 of 2015 issued for the same post; petitioner applied and was placed first on the waiting list
- 2018: Selected candidate joined post under 2015 advertisement; later resigned after selection under 2011 advertisement
- 2018: Petitioner filed SWP No. 2285/2018 before the High Court of J&K
- 2021: Case transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal as T.A. No. 7934/2021
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to operate the waiting list under Advertisement No. 05 of 2015 and appoint him to the post vacated by the resigned candidate.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a vacancy arising from the resignation of a selected candidate, after he has joined the post, permits the operation of a waiting list prepared under the same advertisement, and whether the sequencing of result declarations between multiple advertisements creates an enforceable right for wait-listed candidates.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the resignation of the selected candidate created a fresh vacancy that should have been filled by the next eligible candidate on the waiting list. He contended that the Service Selection Board acted arbitrarily by declaring results out of chronological order, thereby enabling the selected candidate to exploit procedural timing. He relied on principles of natural justice and equitable entitlement, asserting that his top position on the list entitled him to appointment when a vacancy arose.
For the Respondent
The respondents countered that a waiting list is not a reservoir of perpetual recruitment but a contingency mechanism for non-joining or non-acceptance of appointment. They emphasized that once a candidate joins, the selection process concludes, and resignation thereafter is a post-recruitment event governed by service rules, not recruitment policy. They cited administrative discretion in conducting combined examinations and sequencing results, and argued that the petitioner had no vested right to appointment.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the legal nature of waiting lists in public recruitment, distinguishing between non-joining and resignation after joining. It held that a waiting list is intended only to address vacancies arising from non-joining at the threshold stage, not from subsequent resignations. The Court emphasized that the act of joining constitutes acceptance of appointment and finalizes the selection process.
"Once a selected candidate joins the post, the vacancy advertised stands filled and the selection process comes to its logical conclusion. Any subsequent resignation after joining does not revive the selection process nor does it confer a right upon a wait-listed candidate to seek appointment as a matter of entitlement."
The Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s claim that delayed declaration of results under Advertisement No. 01 of 2011 created arbitrariness. It held that administrative discretion in sequencing examinations and results is lawful so long as the process is uniform and non-discriminatory. The Court noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any statutory violation, bias, or procedural illegality.
The Tribunal further warned that accepting the petitioner’s argument would transform waiting lists into open-ended recruitment pools, inviting endless litigation and undermining the finality of appointments. It reaffirmed that courts cannot issue appointment orders based on sympathy, expectation, or perceived hardship in the absence of a legally enforceable right.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s application was dismissed. The Court held that a vacancy created by resignation after joining does not revive a concluded selection process, and a wait-listed candidate has no enforceable right to appointment in such circumstances. No direction for appointment was granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Waiting Lists Are Not Perpetual Recruitment Pools
- Practitioners must advise clients that being first on a waiting list does not guarantee appointment if the selected candidate joins and later resigns
- Applications seeking appointment based on post-joining vacancies should be challenged on grounds of lack of legal entitlement
- Employers are not obligated to reopen recruitment processes for resignations occurring after joining
Administrative Sequencing Is Lawful Unless Biased
- Recruitment boards may conduct combined examinations and declare results in non-chronological order without violating fairness
- Challenges to result sequencing must prove actual discrimination or statutory breach, not mere inconvenience or timing disadvantage
- Courts will not interfere in administrative timing decisions absent malafide or arbitrariness
No Equitable Right to Appointment
- Sympathy for wait-listed candidates cannot substitute legal rights
- Tribunals and courts will not grant appointment as a remedy for perceived injustice unless a statutory or constitutional right is infringed
- Petitioners must establish a clear legal entitlement, not merely a moral claim to the position
