1. Recruitment for Agriculture Supervisor — names recommended from waiting list after six months — appointment denied on basis of circular. (Para 1 , 2 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 685
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Binita Devi Balai D/o Shri Ramlal Balai – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12177 of 2023
Decided On : 25-02-2026
Important Points
A candidate on a waiting list cannot claim a right to appointment if their recommendation occurs after the expiry of the prescribed six-month validity period of the waiting list, as this does not constitute an illegal change in eligibility criteria midway through recruitment.
Subject
Service Law - Public Employment
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Appointment from waiting list - Recommendation of selection board - Operation of waiting list - A candidate placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies are available - The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate - If vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list (Paras 15, 17, 18).
(B) Service Law - Recruitment Process - Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit (Para 15).
(C) Service Law - Waiting List - Validity period - The outer limit prescribed for operation of waiting list is six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded to the Government - Recommendations made after the expiry of this period cannot be used to claim a right to appointment (Paras 12, 14, 17, 18).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners applied for the post of Agriculture Supervisor and were placed on a waiting list. After the cancellation of appointment orders of some candidates who failed to join, the selection board recommended the names of petitioners after more than six months from the date the main list was sent to the department. The respondents denied appointment based on a circular prohibiting the use of waiting lists beyond six months from the date of the main recommendation. The petitioners challenged this denial, arguing that the criteria cannot be changed midway through the selection process.
Findings of Court:
Recommendations made after the expiry of six months from the date of recommendation of the main list are not valid for appointment. The petitioners failed to challenge the vires of the circular limiting the waiting list's operation to six months.
Issues: Whether a recommendation made by a selection board after the expiry of the six-month limit for the operation of a waiting list is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus for appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the operation of the waiting list is governed by the limits prescribed by the Department of Personnel. The since the names of the petitioners were recommended after six months from the date of the main list was sent, they have no legal right to be appointed based on the recommendation. The principle of changing criteria midway through the selection process applies to eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, not to the operation of a waiting list's validity period.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
(B) Service Law - Recruitment Process - Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit (Para 15).
(C) Service Law - Waiting List - Validity period - The outer limit prescribed for operation of waiting list is six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded to the Government - Recommendations made after the expiry of this period cannot be used to claim a right to appointment (Paras 12, 14, 17, 18).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners applied for the post of Agriculture Supervisor and were placed on a waiting list. After the cancellation of appointment orders of some candidates who failed to join, the selection board recommended the names of petitioners after more than six months from the date the main list was sent to the department. The respondents denied appointment based on a circular prohibiting the use of waiting lists beyond six months from the date of the main recommendation. The petitioners challenged this denial, arguing that the criteria cannot be changed midway through the selection process.
Findings of Court:
Recommendations made after the expiry of six months from the date of recommendation of the main list are not valid for appointment. The petitioners failed to challenge the vires of the circular limiting the waiting list's operation to six months.
Issues: Whether a recommendation made by a selection board after the expiry of the six-month limit for the operation of a waiting list is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus for appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the operation of the waiting list is governed by the limits prescribed by the Department of Personnel. The since the names of the petitioners were recommended after six months from the date of the main list was sent, they have no legal right to be appointed based on the recommendation. The principle of changing criteria midway through the selection process applies to eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, not to the operation of a waiting list's validity period.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jeetendra Kumar Sharma
For the Respondent: Hansraj Kuldeep
For the Appellant : Jeetendra Kumar Sharma
For the Respondent: Hansraj Kuldeep
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argue accrued right and illegal change of criteria; respondents rely on circular barring recommendations after six months. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Waiting list operates only six months from main list; recommendations after expiry are invalid; no indefeasible right to appointment. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 17 , 18 )
4. Candidates in select list have no indefeasible right to appointment; waiting list recommendations beyond six months are barred. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; no ground for mandamus as recommendations were made after expiry of statutory period. (Para 19 )
6. Does a recommendation from a waiting list after six months from the main list create a right to appointment?
No. The waiting list operates only for six months; recommendations after that period are invalid and do not confer any right to appointment. (Para 12 , 13 , 17 , 18 )
7. Can eligibility criteria be changed midway through a recruitment process?
No, unless extant rules or the advertisement permit such change, and the change must satisfy Article 14 and non-arbitrariness. (Para 15 )
8. Does placement in a select list confer an indefeasible right to appointment?
No, but the State cannot arbitrarily deny appointment if vacancies exist; denial must be justified. (Para 15 , 17 )
ORDER :
1. Instant writ petition filed with following prayer:-
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to take on record this rejoinder and direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners on the post of Agriculture Supervisor in pursuance of advertisement (Annx.1) and in view of the fact that their names have been duly recommended by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur vide order dated 21.10.2022 (Annx.11), with all consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.4 has issued an advertisement dated 05.02.2021 for inviting application for recruitment on the post of Agriculture Supervisor. After the corrigendum, the advertisement was amended on 05.07.2021 and on 26.08.2021. The petitioner No.1 has applied under SC/Female Category, whereas petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 applied in OBC(NC) Category. After the declaration of result on 23.11.2021 and document verification, final list was sent to the Agriculture Department and appointment order of 2066 candidates in non-TSP area was issued on 11.03.2022. Again, a fresh select list of 43 candidates was sent on 27.05.2022 and out of which, 38 persons were appointed vide order dated 19.09.2022. The Board has again sent a list on 07.07.2022 and the Department has appointed 23 candidates in non-TSP area vide appointment order dated 03.01.2023. Some of the candidates have not joined and the respondent No.4 has recommended names of 12 candidates vide order dated 21.10.2022, which includes name of petitioners. The Department has not taken any action on the list as recommended by the Commission. The petitioners have submitted a representation to the Department, but no action has been taken by them. The petitioners have preferred current petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has submitted that vide order dated 19.10.2022, the Commissioner (Agriculture) has requested Staff Selection Board to recommend names against 10 candidates, whose candidature was rejected by the Department vide order dated 19.10.2022. He further submitted that acting upon the recommendation, the SSB has sent a list of 12 candidates on 21.10.2022, but the Department is avoiding to appoint the petitioners primarily on the ground that a new circular dated 27.12.2021 was issued by the DOP, which prohibits subsequent recommendation six months after declaration and use of waiting list, beyond six months.
4. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment in case of K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , AIR 2008 SC 1470 and further considered by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. 2024 INSC 847 and submitted that changing the criteria before completion of selection process and introducing a new requirement is declared as illegal. He also placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment dated 13.03.2023 in D.B. SAW No. 06/2023; State of Rajasthan Vs. Krishna Kumar and submitted that for the vacancy of year 2021, the circular issued by DOP on 27.12.2021 was not made applicable. He also submitted that the rule cannot be changed to place the petitioners in disadvantage position as a right has already been accrued in the favour of the petitioners.
5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel on behalf of respondents and submitted that on 27.12.2021, the DOP has issued a circular after supersession of all previous notifications and directed that a waiting list is operative only upto 6 months, from date of main recommendation and not thereafter. He further submitted that the Agriculture Department acting upon the binding circular issued by the DOP has denied the appointment to petitioners.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred herein above.
7. The short controversy involved in this writ petition is that whether a recommendation made by Rajasthan Staff Selection Board
