Waitlisted Candidates Cannot Claim Appointment Once All Selected Candidates Join Posts : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that a waitlist cannot remain operative indefinitely and expires once all posts are filled through the recruitment process. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order that had directed the notional absorption of a waitlisted candidate several years after the completion of the original recruitment.

The case arose from a 1997 recruitment drive by All India Radio for three Technician posts reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. The respondent, first on the waiting list, was not appointed as all selected candidates had joined. In 1999, government counsel informally assured that he would be accommodated when a vacancy arose—an assurance that led to prolonged litigation spanning 25 years. In 2024, the Calcutta High Court, citing the doctrine of legitimate expectation, directed his notional absorption from 2013.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar stated, “it is clear that any right that the respondent could claim as a waitlisted candidate extinguished when all the selected candidates joined on their respective posts.”

Further the Court noted that in this case, enforcing the statement made on 15.01.1999 would result in appointing a waitlisted candidate even though all selected candidates had already joined. This would effectively fill a post in a later recruitment using an earlier process, unfairly reducing vacancies for new applicants and impermissibly extending the life of an exhausted waitlist.

“We find that the appellants are justified in contending that the statement dated 15.01.1999 cannot be acted upon as it would result in conferring benefit on a waitlisted candidate to which he otherwise in law is not entitled to. The same is also not shown to be permissible under the Recruitment Rules. It appears that the High Court glossed over these vital aspects while directing the appellants to absorb the services of the respondent. The available vacancies having been filled up in 1997 resulted in exhaustion of the wait list and the said process of recruitment had come to an end. The High Court has, therefore, erred in directing the absorption of the respondent.” the Court added.