Candidates on a wait list have no vested right to appointment, but must be reasonably considered when vacancies exist, emphasizing merit in recruitment processes.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. Petitioners challenge the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') in O.A. No.2579/2018 whereby the Original Application filed by the Petitioners was dismissed.

2. Respondent No.2/Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter, referred to as `DSSSB') herein issued an advertisement No.01/2014 dated 05.07.2014 inviting applications for various posts including Trained Graduate Teacher (Computer Science) [hereinafter, referred to as `TGT(CS)'] having Post Code no.192/14. Petitioners had appeared in the written examination and were declared successful in the results, which were announced in September, 2017. Waiting list also appears to have been prepared by the DSSSB.

3. Petitioners claim to be named in the Wait List. The Petitioners further contend that though the User Departments had returned the dossiers of several candidates resulting in large number of vacancies, despite which DSSSB did not operate the Wait List and thereby depriving the Petitioners of an opportunity of being considered for appointment to the post of TGT (CS).

4. DSSSB filed a detailed counter affidavit before the Tribunal as well as this Court giving the minute details with regard to the number of posts available in each category which were originally advertised, along with the number of posts in each category which have been filled up from the original select list as well as the wait list which was actually operated, given the fact that certain dossiers were returned from the User Department.

5. After having examined the details mentioned by Respondent No.2/DSSSB in its counter affidavit, the Tribunal passed the impugned order, which is being assailed in the present writ petition.

6. Mr. Parkash Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the Respondent No.2/DSSSB admitted that it had maintained a wait list and that the candidates in the said wait list were indeed selected against the vacancies which arose due to the dossiers being returned by the User Department. He further submits that Respondent No.2/DSSSB has wrongly contended that the wait list was operated in time before it lapsed and submits that the wait list was operated even beyond the alleged date of lapse. Mr. Chandra also submits that inspite of having filled up the posts, there still exists a large number of vacancies, which can be filled by operating the Waiting List further and the Petitioners who belong to different categories can be appointed against the said vacancies.

7. Mr. Chandra relies upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and Ors. Vs. South East Central Railways and Ors., bearing Civil Appeal Nos.11360-11363/2018, decided on 27.11.2018. In particular, Mr. Chandra refers to para 6 of the said judgment which relies upon a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the matter of R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India, (1995) Suppl. 2 SCC 230 wherein a portion of para 10 in R.S. Mittal's judgment was extracted:

"10. .... It is no doubt correct that a person on the select 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 select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. 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, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to igno