The waiting list candidates have the right to claim appointment if the candidates from the main list do not join, and the State must provide justifiable, non-arbitrary reasons for not filling up the vacancies.

ORDER : – The State of Madhya Pradesh through its Finance Department has filed these writ appeals against the common order dated 4-12-2019 passed by the writ Court whereby W. P. Nos. 15351/2018, 15269/2018, 15291/2018, 15338/2018, 15397/2018 and 15477/2018 have been allowed.

The facts of the case, in short, are as under :

The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short : MPPSC) issued an advertisement on 29-10-2015 inviting applications for appointment on 128 posts of Treasury Officer/Account Officer/Assistant Director in the Finance Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh. The respondents/writ petitioners applied under the said advertisement and they were permitted to appear in the written examination followed by a personal interview. They all were declared qualified for appointment in the respective posts but kept in the waiting list. The MPPSC invited them to participate in the process of counselling followed by verification of documents. Vide different orders dated 11-10-2017, 30-10-2017, 5-12-2017 and 23-12-2017 the State Government appointed 111 candidates against 128 sanctioned posts. After joining, some of the selected candidates resigned from their respective posts. Since the petitioners were placed in the waiting list, hence, on account of the resignation of the candidates after the issuance of the appointment order, they claimed appointment on their respective posts.

2. The petitioners have relied on the circular dated 14-7-2016 issued by the General Administration Department of the State whereby an earlier circular dated 7-3-2012 has been amended and by virtue of which the posts falling vacant on account of contingencies such as non-joining, resignation, death, etc. will be filled from the candidates of the waiting list. Some of the candidates who have been selected in the examination conducted in 2015 have resigned from their respective posts by virtue of their selection in the year 2014. When no appointment was offered to the writ petitioners despite their names appearing in the waiting list, they approached this Court by way of aforesaid writ petitions.

3. In the writ petitions, the appellant/State filed the reply contending that in the light of the circular dated 14-8-2013 issued by the GAD the period of validity of the select list is one year which is liable to be extendable for another six months and the period of validity of the waiting list is for one year and six months. In the present case, the select list was received from the MPPSC in the month of May, 2017, hence it remained valid up to May, 2018, whereas the petitioners did not raise their claim within the validity period, hence, they have no right to claim appointment.

4. The MPPSC also filed the reply by submitting that after the written, as well as oral examinations the result of the selection was declared on 19-4-2017. The recommendation letter was sent on 19-4-2017 to the concerned department. Due to some computer mistake, 15 candidates could not be declared eligible for interview. The amended select list was declared on 13-8-2017 after cancelling the previous select list dated 19-4-2017. It is further submitted that the validity of the main select list was up to 21-7-2018 and the validity of the waiting list was up to 21-1-2019. Since respondent No. 1/State did not send any proposal or request to the MPPSC for sending the names of the candidates from the waiting list, therefore, no appointment could be given to the petitioners. The petitioners being waiting list candidates have no indefeasible right for appointment. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Despite the service of notices to the private respondents in the petitions, they did not choose to appear before the writ Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Writ Court has held that the candidates who were appointed to the respective posts have resigned from the posts even after joining, and then petitioners are entitled to the appointment o