The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has quashed an order issued by the state transport authorities that denied employment to a selected candidate, ruling that the administration cannot hide behind the principle that a select list confers no indefeasible right to appointment. In a significant decision, Justice Irshad Ali ordered the Transport Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh to re-examine the claim of Bihari Lal Rastogi for the position of Enforcement Constable, strictly adhering to the requirements of transparency, consistency, and adherence to governing service rules.

The dispute originated from a recruitment drive initiated in 2004, when the Transport Commissioner published an advertisement on August 10, 2004, seeking candidates for the post of Enforcement Constable. Bihari Lal Rastogi participated in the selection process, which included a physical fitness test and interviews conducted in January 2005. Upon the declaration of results in March 2005, Rastogi’s name appeared at Serial No. 54 in the merit list for candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. Although the department initially advertised 50 vacancies for the OBC quota, the resulting select list included 55 names, suggesting a proactive anticipation of future openings within the selection year.

Despite his inclusion in the select list, the petitioner was never issued an appointment letter, even though the authorities eventually hired 52 candidates. Rastogi repeatedly approached the department through various representations, asserting that 30 additional OBC vacancies had remained unfilled during the recruitment cycle. His claims were consistently rebuffed by the state authorities, who argued that once the advertised posts were filled, the selection list became inoperative. This stance was bolstered by a previous administrative rejection of his representation, which the petitioner challenged as being based on an incorrect factual premise regarding a submission he claimed he never made.

The legal battle gained momentum following the success of other similarly situated candidates, notably Imamuddin and Bal Govind Upadhyay, who had also been part of the same recruitment pool. Both individuals had successfully sought judicial intervention, resulting in court-mandated appointments against vacancies that arose during the relevant selection period. The High Court, in its recent ruling, emphasized that the state’s conduct toward these candidates created a clear precedent that should have been applied to Rastogi.

In its judgment, the Court remarked, “This Court is conscious of the settled principle that mere inclusion of a candidate's name in a select list does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to appointment. Equally, however, the said principle does not absolve the recruiting authority of its obligation to act fairly, consider relevant material and apply the governing recruitment provisions consistently.”

The bench further underscored that the respondents could not dismiss the petitioner’s claim simply by stating that the initial vacancies were exhausted. The Court directed the authorities to perform a comprehensive review of the vacancy position that existed during the 2004-05 recruitment year. Central to this directive is the interpretation of the advertisement’s stipulation regarding a 25% quota for vacancies arising during the selection year. The Court observed that the department’s reliance on this specific provision to justify the initial select list expansion meant it could not now disregard the same rule when assessing the validity of filling remaining, unfilled posts.

The judgment is particularly notable for its firm stance against bureaucratic inertia. Justice Irshad Ali noted that the rejection order dated November 26, 2012, failed to demonstrate a meaningful application of mind. The Court specifically observed: “The rejection of the petitioner’s claim, therefore, must be tested against these material considerations.” By mandating a fresh, reasoned assessment, the Court has placed the burden of proof back on the state to explicitly detail how each vacancy was handled and why the petitioner was overlooked while others in the same merit list were granted relief.

The High Court has granted the transport authorities a three-month window to complete this reconsideration process. The administration is now required to produce a reasoned order that explicitly addresses Rastogi’s merit position, the specific number of available OBC vacancies during the 2004-05 cycle, and a clear legal justification for why the relief granted to Imamuddin and Bal Govind is not applicable in this instance. Should the authority determine that a vacancy existed and that the petitioner was entitled to the appointment under the service rules, the state must now process the hiring and provide the consequential seniority and service benefits that would have accrued had he been hired alongside his peers.

This decision serves as a stern reminder to government bodies that the process of recruitment, once initiated, must be governed by institutional fairness rather than administrative convenience. By prioritizing the petitioner's right to a consistent application of policy over the state’s arbitrary rejection of his application, the Court has reinforced the protection of candidates who are left in limbo after being formally recognized as qualified. The next step in this procedural timeline rests with the Transport Commissioner’s office, which must now finalize the compliance report according to the judicial mandate provided by the Allahabad High Court. The outcome of this reassessment will determine whether the petitioner will finally be inducted into the force, bringing an end to a legal struggle that has persisted for over two decades.