Wait List Candidate Doesn't Have Inherent Right To Appointment, Can't Challenge Selected List Of Candidates After One Year: Delhi High Court

Brief Facts:

The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court (“High Court”) and filed a writ petition for quashing of the Recruitment Notification issued by Janki Devi Memorial College, Delhi, and a direction to consider the Petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor. The Petitioner admitted that he did not make it to the final list of selected candidates but was placed at Sl. No.3 on the waitlist. The notice based on interviews and recommendations by the Selection Committee listed Respondent No.3 as successful at Sl. No.2 in the OBC category.

The Petitioner's main contention was that Respondent No.3 is not an OBC candidate according to the Central List of the State of Bihar. The Petitioner argued that if Respondent No.3's candidature was invalidated, the Petitioner would be entitled to the vacant post. The rationale was that the first candidate on the waiting list belongs to the PwBD category, which does not qualify for the OBC category, and the second candidate on the waiting list, also an OBC candidate, has unfortunately passed away. This left the Petitioner as the only eligible OBC candidate for the position.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court noted that among the documents filed by the Petitioner was a certificate issued by the State of Bihar certifying Respondent No.3's inclusion in the Central List of OBC category persons for Bihar. This certification matched the Petitioner's own referenced list in the writ petition. The Respondent's caste certificate further corroborated this classification. Given that this certificate was issued by the competent authority in the same manner as the Petitioner's, the High Court found no grounds for the Petitioner to challenge Respondent No.3's entitlement to the post.

The High Court emphasized that if the Petitioner doubted the authenticity of the certificate, he was at liberty to challenge it in accordance with the law. However, the Petitioner's challenge to Respondent No.3's appointment, without any substantial evidence, was held to be unsustainable.

The High Court held that a wait-listed candidate does not have an inherent right to appointment. It referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Karnataka and others vs. Bharthi S. in which SC held that the publication of a waiting list does not create a right to appointment, and filling up vacancies from such a list is not obligatory unless mandated by specific rules. The High Court held that the decision to fill vacancies from the waiting list is at the discretion of the state, provided it is not done arbitrarily and remains subject to judicial review.

The High Court held that the petition was frivolous and without merit. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the petition. The Petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 15,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority.

Case Title: Mohammad Inamul Haq vs. the University Of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 681

Case Number: W.P.(C) 5034/2024

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Kumar Mishra, Ms. Richa Bais, and Ms. Dipti Mishra

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Mr. Hardik Rupal, Advocates for R-1 Mr. G.K. Pathak

Date of Judgment: 21.05.2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order or Judgment