Deepak Thakur vs Union Of India & Anr.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that a process was initiated by the respondent-IIT to fill-up the posts of Assistant Registrar vide Advertisement No.IIT Mandi/Recruit./NTS/2024/04, dated 30.08.2024 (Annexure P-1). In all, 6 posts were advertised. 1 post was reserved for Scheduled Caste Category, 2 posts for OBC Category and 3 posts for Unreserved Category. The petitioner being eligible to participate in the process, participated in the same against unreserved quota. To cut the controversy short, the result of the process undertaken by the respondent-IIT for the selection of candidates against the posts of Assistant Registrar, was declared on 06.02.2025 and against the Unreserved Category, candidates with Roll Numbers 11446, 11691 and 11781 were declared as selected.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the information provided to him under the Right to Information Act, copy whereof is appended with petition as Annexure P-6, the petitioner was 4^th in the overall merit, having scored 70.30 marks, which is evident from the marks mentioned against his Roll Number, 11467, yet the respondents have not offered him appointment, after two of the selected candidates failed to join the posts.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in the process of selection undertaken by the respondents, the petitioner was fourth in overall merit. Once the posts remained vacant on account of the selected candidates not having joined, the respondents should have offered the posts to the next in line and as the petitioner was next in line on merit, the post should have been offered to him. Denial thereof to the petitioner according to the learned counsel, is bad in law. Accordingly, he prayed that the said act of the respondents be declared as bad and a mandamus be issued to the respondents to offer the post which has not been occupied by the selected candidates to the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:-

On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent-Institute submitted that the respondent-Institute has framed the Non-Faculty Staff Structuring and Recruitment and Promotion Norms, 2016. She submitted that these are the Norms which govern the recruitment of the Non-Faculty Staff and in terms of said Norms, there is no provision of maintaining any Waiting List during the course of carrying out recruitment qua the Non-Faculty Staff members. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the absence of there being any such provision in the Recruitment and Promotion Norms, the petitioner cannot claim any right to be offered appointment against the posts not occupied by the selected candidates, as there is no Waiting Panel and the process stands exhausted after the candidates were selected de hors as to whether they joined the posts or not. In support of her contention, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments:-

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that irrespective of the fact whether the Recruitment Norms contained any criteria for having a Waiting List or not, when the petitioner indeed was meritorious as is apparent from the overall merit of the candidates prepared by the respondent-Institute, no purpose is going to be achieved by denying appointment to him and undertaking the recruitment process afresh. Learned counsel also submitted that in terms of the judgment cited by him, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had reiterated that in the event of availability of vacancies as also selected candidates, no arbitrary discretion was vested with the employer to deny appointment to the selected candidate on merit.

Sh. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Senior Panel Counsel, appearing for respondent No.1, submitted that respondent No.1 adopts the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2. He submitted that in the absence of there being any provision in the Recruitment Norms of preparation of any Waiting List, no infirmity can be pointed towards the act of the respondent-Institute of not offering appointment to the petitioner on account of non-joining of the selected candidates.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.1 as well as learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

The moot issue involved in this case is in a very narrow compass and the same is as to whether there is any right vested in a candidate who participates in a selection process to claim appointment against an unfilled post on merit in the absence of there being any Waiting List, on account of non-joining of the selected candidates.

Firstly, I will refer to the judgments cited by Sh. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. In Shankarsan Dash Versus Union of India, (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 47, the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that if number of vacancies are notified for appointments and adequate number of candidates are found, the successful candidates acquire an indefensible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily, the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection, they do not acquire any right to be posted. Unless the relevant Recruitment Rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the license of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill-up vacancies has to be taken bonafidely for appropriate reasons and if the vacancies or any of them are filled-up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected in the recruitment test and no discrimination can be permitted.

In Asha Kaul (Mrs) and Another Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 573 Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that though it is true that mere inclusion in the Selection List does not confer upon the candidates included therein any indefensible right to appointment, but that is only one aspect of the matter and the other aspect is the obligation on the Government to act thereupon.

In R.S. Mittal Versus Union of India, 1995 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 230, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that it is no doubt correct that a person on the Selection Panel, has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected. He has a right to be considered for appointment, but at the same time, the Appointing Authority cannot ignore the Selection Panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that when a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, ordinarily there is no justification to ignore him for appointment.

Now, I will refer to the judgments which have been cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. In Bihar State Electricity Board Versus Suresh Prasad and Others, (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 681, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:-

Thereafter, in Vallampati Sathish Babu Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2022) 13 Supreme Court Cases 193, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to reiterate the law earlier laid down in Bihar SEB Versus Suresh Prashad (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 681, that even in case candidates selected for appointment have not joined, in the absence of any statutory rule to the contrary, the employer is not bound to offer the unfilled vacancy to the candidates below, the said candidates in the merit list. Hon’ble Supreme Court also reiterated that in the absence of any provision, the employer is not bound to prepare a Waiting List in addition to the Panel of selected candidates and to appoint the candidates from the Waiting List in case the candidates from the Panel do not join.

In State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Karunesh Kumar, (2022) SCC Online, SC 1706, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold in Paras 29 and 30 thereof that it is settled law that there is no vested right of unsuccessful candidates to insist upon their consideration, in the absence of any rule requiring the preparation of a Waiting List.

Thereafter, in a recent judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) 35896 of 2025, titled State of Karnataka & Ors. Versus Santosh Kumar C (2026 INSC 276), decided on 23.03.2026, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:-

Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that in the present case, no Waiting List was prepared by respondent No.2. As far as the petitioner is concerned, his name was not included in the ‘Select List’. There were three posts advertised under the unreserved Category and the ‘Select List’ included the name of three meritorious candidates.

The judgments which have been cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, all refer to the situations wherein the employer for some reason was not offering appointment to the candidates in the ‘Select Panel’ on merit. Unfortunately, the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not come to the rescue of the petitioner for the simple reason that herein the name of the petitioner was not there in the ‘Select Panel’. Had it been a case that the petitioner was one of the top three meritorious candidates and his name was included in the Selection List, yet the Institution was not offering him appointment, then the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner could have come to the rescue of the petitioner. Herein, in the absence of the name of the petitioner being included in the Selection Panel, as observed hereinabove, these judgments do not help the cause of the petitioner.

On the other hand, the judgments which have been cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Institution demonstrate that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to consistently hold that until and unless there is a statutory or a rule-based requirement that the employer has to frame a Waiting List, it cannot be forced to make the same and an unsuccessful candidate in the absence of a Waiting List, cannot call upon the employer to offer the post to him, which has remained unfilled on account of a Selection Panel candidate not joining the same.

In the present case, the stand of the Institution is that the recruitment and promotions of Non-Faculty Staff is governed by the Recruitment and Promotions Norms-2016 and there is no provision contained therein that in the process of recruitment undertaken by the Authority to fill-up Non-Faculty Staff, a Waiting Panel has to be created. A Careful perusal of the Norms demonstrates that there is provision of preparing a ‘Wait List’ in the process of recruitment. This, in the absence of any such requirement being there in the Norms-2016, the non-preparation of the Waiting List at the best of respondent No.2 cannot be faulted with. Obviously, as there is no Waiting Panel, there are none in the Waiting List, including the petitioner. Therefore, in the backdrop of the above factual position wherein the Norms governing recruitment to the Non-Faculty Posts do not envisage the preparation of a Wait Panel, the present petitioner cannot compel the respondents to offer him appointment against the vacancy which has remained unfilled on account of non-joining of the selected candidate(s).

This Court again reiterates that a Selection List or a Selection Panel of the candidates who were recommended for appointment was duly prepared by the Institution in terms of Annexure-C, i.e. communication dated 06.02.2023 and it is not as if, one of the candidates whose name was there in the list of the Selection Panel, is before the Court feeling aggrieved by the fact that he or she is not being offered appointment by the respondent-Institution.

Therefore, in light of the above observations, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, nor does it find any fault in the act of the respondent-Institution of not preparing a Wait List, and not offering appointment to the petitioner against the post which has remained unfilled on account of non-joining of the selected candidate(s), this petition is dismissed. Interim order, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. However, before parting away with the judgment, this Court would like to make an observation that as the process of recruitment undertaken by Institutions like respondent No.2 is time consuming and involve expenditure from the Public Exchequer, therefore, the Institution may re-think over the issue of having a Waiting Panel in the matter of appointments. By doing so, not only the time and money of the Institution shall be saved, but candidates like the petitioner, who have undergone the toil of participating in the process, can be adjusted against the posts not filled on account of non-joining of a selected candidates if such candidates otherwise on merit are eligible to be offered the said post(s).