The Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling in matters arising out of recruitments conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), categorically holding that mere inclusion of a candidate’s name in a Waiting/Reserve List does not confer any automatic or indefeasible right of appointment.
The Court specifically observed that,
“when the selection of candidates and drawing up of the select/merit list followed by preparation of the waiting list is by a Public Service Commission. Here, the recommendations have to be preceded by requisitions. Even though cancellation of appointment could have been effected during the period the waiting list is alive, unless a requisition is made by the appointing authority, such a Commission may not be bound to recommend any candidate from the waiting list. Each case, therefore, has to be adjudicated based on the peculiar facts as well as the governing rules.”
The aforesaid judgment was rendered by a Division Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih whereby the Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court. Those orders had directed appointment straight from the waiting list against vacancies arising due to non-joining, despite the fact that no fresh requisition had been made by the appointing authority to the Commission.
Background of the case
Rajasthan Public Service Commission had conducted recruitments in different years for the posts of Junior Legal Officer (JLO) and Assistant Statistical Officer (ASO). Certain candidates included in the select list did not join their respective posts, resulting in vacancies.
Candidates whose names appeared in the waiting list claimed a right to be appointed against such vacancies. Accepting their plea, the High Court directed RPSC to pick up names from the waiting list and either appoint or consider such candidates. These directions were challenged by RPSC before the Supreme Court.
Issues before the Supreme Court
The principal questions that arose for consideration before the Court were:
1. Whether the appellant (RPSC) had the locus standi to maintain writ appeals when the State of Rajasthan itself had not challenged the orders passed by the Single Judges.
2. What is the legal nature of a waiting/reserve list, and at what stage does the right of a wait-listed candidate to be considered for appointment accrue, whether from the date of refusal of appointment by selected candidates or from any earlier date.
3. Whether, in the absence of any formal requisition by the appointing authority, the High Court could issue a writ of mandamus directing appointment or even consideration of candidates from the waiting/reserve list.
Findings of the Court
While answering the above issues, the Supreme Court relied upon the decision in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn., reiterating that a waiting list is not a perennial or continuous source of recruitment and that a candidate in the waiting list has no vested right of appointment, except to the limited extent where a selected candidate does not join and the waiting list is still operative.
The Court also referred to Rakhi Roy v. High Court of Delhi, reiterating that a waiting list cannot be treated as a reservoir to fill up vacancies that arise subsequently.
Arguments of the parties
On behalf of the respondents (Yati Jain and others), it was argued that the validity of a waiting list should not be viewed mechanically. If there was administrative delay in joining by selected candidates, the consequences should not be borne by wait-listed candidates. It was contended that the respondents had approached the Court in time and could not be blamed for delay or laches.
It was further argued that the role of the Public Service Commission is merely recommendatory and once the State Government had either indicated appointment or had not challenged the High Court’s directions, the Commission should not have objected to this. According to the respondent, denial of appointment to meritorious wait-listed candidates, amounted to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Rejection of respondents’ contentions
Rejecting the submissions given by repondents, the Supreme Court categorically held that “the illegality in recommending some of the candidates figuring in the reserve list could not have been made the basis for issuance of a writ of mandamus citing Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Court emphasised that RPSC is a constitutional authority and no appointment can be made without its recommendation. It further clarified that the operation of a waiting list is strictly governed by recruitment rules, and its validity period cannot be extended or utilised arbitrarily.
The Court also noted that the respondents had failed to approach the Court within the six-month validity period during which the reserve list was alive and operative.
Final conclusion
Based on these observations, the Supreme Court held that the respondent should not have been admitted in the first place, taking into account the dates of their filing. The Court also observed that prolonged and repetitive litigation in service matters leads to uncertainty and instability for a large number of candidates across the country.
The judiciary, the Court cautioned, must remain conscious of these practical realities and interpret service rules in a manner that advances the core objective of the selection process and appointment of the most suitable candidates in a timely manner.
Accordingly, the appeals filed by RPSC were allowed, and the High Court’s judgments were set aside.
Case: Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Vs Yati Jain & Others
Date of Order: 15.01.2026
See Order: Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Vs Yati Jain & Others
