A waiting list does not confer a vested right to appointment; once candidates on the selection list join, the list is exhausted, invalidating claims for subsequent vacancies.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Mr. H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 4 to appoint the petitioner in the post of Office Peon which had fallen vacant due to the promotion of Sri Nizam Hussain and Ms. Suman Kumari to the post of LDA and further seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the communication dated 09.02.2023.

3. The case of the petitioner, as would be seen from the materials on record is that the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Dhubri had issued an Advertisement on 18.02.2022 for filling up of 2 (two) posts of Office Peon. The petitioner participated in the said selection process and vide the select list dated 15.03.2022, 2 (two) persons were selected to the post of the Office Peon and the petitioner along with 3 (three) others were put in the waiting list. It was further mentioned that the said select list shall be valid for 1 (one) year from the date of the said list.

4. Subsequent thereto, one Sri Nizam Hussain and Ms. Suman Kumari who were holding the post of Office Peon were promoted to the post of LDA on the basis of a select list prepared on 18.01.2023 and under such circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation on the ground that against these 2 (two) posts, the petitioner be appointed as the petitioner was in the waiting list of the select list dated 15.03.2022. The said application was rejected vide the communication dated 09.02.2023 stating inter alia that the waiting list was made in the select list, in case the selected candidate for appointment does not join, but the said candidates having joined the establishment, the petitioner's application cannot be considered. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the reliefs as already above mentioned.

5. It is seen from the records that the respondent No. 4 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition thereby supporting the stand which has been mentioned in the impugned communication dated 09.02.2023.

6. In the backdrop of the above, this Court heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents.

7. Mr. A. Chamuah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the Assam District and Sessions Judges Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 (for short, “the Rules of 1987”) and, more particularly, to the note appended to Rule 6(5) of the said Rules of 1987. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that for filling up of the post in the cadre of Lower Division Assistant there is a requirement that the District and Sessions Judge shall call for applications to fill up temporary vacancies of any kind of posts which are likely to occur in the course of the year in their respective establishments. He therefore submitted that as the subsequent posts arose in the same year, the petitioner who was in the waiting list ought to have been appointed against the vacancies which arose upon the promotion of Sri Nizam Hussain and Ms. Suman Kumari. He further submitted that the select list was valid for 1 (one) year.

8. Per contra, Mr. H.K. Das the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 submitted that the waiting list is being prepared fo