In Absence Of Statutory Provision For Waiting List, Unfilled Vacancies Can't Be Claimed By Next Merit Candidate : Chhattisgarh HC

Background Facts

An advertisement for 57 posts of Sanitary Inspector was issued by the Directorate, Urban Administration Department, Chhattisgarh, on 16.02.2018, pursuant to the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam (Adhikariyon Aur Karmchariyon ki Niyukti tatha Sewake Nibandhan evam Shartein) Niyam, 2018 (Rules of 2018); Chhattisgarh Nagarpalika Sewa (Vetanman evam Bhatta) Niyam, 1967 (Rules of 1967); Chhattisgarh Nagarpalika Karmchari (Bharti tatha Sewa Shartein) Niyam, 1968 (Rules of 1968).

The appellant participated in the written examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board. The respondent published a provisional select list on 05.10.2018. Then respondents called the candidates for verification of documents, and thereafter, a list of eligible and ineligible candidates was published. The department issued appointment orders in favor of only two persons. The name of the appellant was not in the select list, and further no waiting list was prepared by the department. Therefore, the appellant claimed appointment to the post of Sanitary Inspector on the ground that out of a total of 57 posts, 55 posts were still lying vacant. But it was rejected by the respondent state.

Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition on 29.08.2024. The appellant submitted that as the 55 candidates were declared ineligible for the appointment, the respondent-State should proceed for the document verification from the list of eligible candidates who have cleared the written-test and were fully eligible for consideration of their candidature. The single judge dismissed the petition on the ground as there was no provision to prepare waiting list in the relevant recruitment rules governing the appointment, therefore, appellant had no vested right to be appointed.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the intra Court appeal against the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Single Judge.

It was submitted by the appellant that the respondents have committed grave error by sending name of candidates as per order of merit of marks obtained and not by verifying the eligible candidates in compliance of mandate under the Rules of 1968 and Rules of 2018. The appellant relied upon the judgment of Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs. State of U.P., whereby the Supreme Court held that the recruitment process must follow objective criteria and due diligence to ensure fairness. The lack of scrutiny violates the principles of transparency and fairness in public employment.

It was further submitted that no waiting list was prepared which is contrary to Chhattisgarh Municipal (Executive/Engineering/Health) Services, Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Rules, 2017 (Rules of 2017) which deals with the procedure of recruitment. It was stated that Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017 deals with a list of candidates recommended by the Committee. Sub-Rule (4) expressly states that “A select list for each category shall be prepared by the Commission for filling the vacant posts, for such categories a waiting list shall also be prepared”.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the State that the advertisement dated 16.02.2018 was specifically issued in terms of Rules of 2018; Rules of 1967 and Rules of 1968 and there was no mention about the Rules of 2017 as relied on by the appellant. It was further argued that the appellant was not in a position to secure appointment as his position in the overall merit list was much below. It was further argued that there was no provision to prepare a waiting list according to the Rules of 2018.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that there is a provision to prepare a wait list according to Rule 12(4) of the Rules of 2017. But the advertisement was not issued as per these rules. Itwas issued according to the Rules of 2018, Rules of 1967 and the Rules of 1968. Therefore, the contention made by the appellant regarding the preparation of the wait list was mistaken. It was observed that as per Rule 16 of the 2012 Rules, once the final selection list is prepared, there shall be no waiting list and posts. And if any posts are unfilled then shall be carried forward for future recruitment as per sub-rule (5) of Rule 16 of the 2012 Rules.

The judgment of Vallampati Sathish Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., was relied upon by the court wherein Supreme Court held that if there is no provision in the rules, there is no need to prepare the wait list.

It was further observed by the court that all the selected candidates were called for counselling after the final selection list was prepared and published. There was no requirement of preparation of a waiting list, therefore appellant claiming to be the next in the merit cannot claim any appointment as his name neither figured in the list of the selected candidates nor in any waiting list as there was no provision at all for preparation of the waiting list.

It was held by the court that the appellant could have claimed the appointment to the post which remained unfilled if there was a provision for waiting list as per the statutory provision. In absence of any specific provision for waiting list and on the contrary, there being a specific provision that there shall not be any waiting list and that the post remaining unfilled on any ground shall have to be carried forward for the next recruitment as per sub-rule (5) of Rule 16, the appellant had no right to claim any appointment to the post which remained unfilled. Further the Suresh Prasad case was relied upon by the court wherein Supreme Court held that even in case candidates selected for appointment have not joined, in the absence of any statutory rules, the employer is not bound to offer the unfilled vacancy to the candidates next below the absent candidates in the merit list.

It was held by the court that the single judge correctly ruled that the appellant was ineligible for appointment, as his name was not on the select list, and no waitlist was prepared due to the absence of such a provision in the Rules. Therefore, the single judge order was upheld by the court. Further it was held by the court that the judgment relied by the appellant was not applicable in his case.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal was dismissed.

Case Name : Sailesh Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Case No. : WA No. 124 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Maya Chaturvijani, Advocates.

Counsel for the Respondents : S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate