Merit List Can’t Stay Alive Indefinitely For Enforcement, Does Not Confer Any Right Of Appointment On Selected Candidates: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a merit list cannot stay alive for an indefinite period for enforcement and that it does not confer any right of appointment upon the selected candidates.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh made the observation while dismissing a plea moved by a candidate who was aggrieved of her non-selection and non-confirmation to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, Maths at Dhanpatmal Virmani Senior Secondary School.

She had sought her appointment to the post with all consequential benefits while also challenging the appointment of the selected candidate.

Dismissing the plea as being devoid of any merit, Justice Singh observed:

“This Court has relied upon the aforesaid judgments and is of the view that a merit list only enlists the selected candidates but does not confer any right for appointment upon the selected candidates and the merit list cannot stay alive for an indefinite period of time for enforcement.”

The court added that the woman candidate failed to make out her case for issuance of the writ of mandamus. Noting that the merit list was published way back in 2017 and more than five years hav elapsed, the court said that it will be highly improper to review the same considering the belated stage.

“There has to be certain reasonable duration during which the merit list can be considered by this Court to grant any relief. Furthermore, this Court whilst relying upon the above mentioned judgment finds that although there exists no explicit rule or law which prescribes a fixed period or duration for which the merit list remains valid, the merit list cannot be kept alive for consideration for such a significantly long time period,” the court said.

It added that though the woman secured third position in the merit list of 2017, it will not entitle her to any legal right to be appointed at the said post.

“Not granting her the position after rank 1 was dismissed and rank 2 waived her seat, does not amount to violation of any legal right. Therefore, the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted in directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner on the said post,” the court said.

Title: RUPINDERJIT KAUR v. THE MANAGER, DHANPATMAL VIRMANI SR. SEC. SCHOOL AND ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 600

Click Here To Read Order