Mere inclusion in a selection or waiting list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, and the employer retains the discretionary power to decide whether to fill vacancies or keep them unfilled, provided such decision is not mala fide.

The application having been heard on 14.05.2026, the Tribunal on 18.05.2026 delivered the following order:

O R D E R

Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member

1. Applicants are natives of Lakshadweep and are aspirants to the post of Lower Division Clerks. It is submitted that, pursuant to Annexure-A1 employment notice issued by the 2nd respondent calling upon the applications for the post of LDC, 54 vacancies were notified including 20 for general candidates and 34 for Scheduled Tribes. Out of all the 54 vacancies, 5 were reserved for Ex-servicemen and 2 for persons with disabilities. It is further stated that all vacancies arising till 31.12.2020 shall be filled by the instant recruitment.

2. The applicant underwent the selection process by participating in the written competitive examination held on 23.01.2021 and the skill test conducted on 10.10.2021. Finally, Annexure-A2 provisional select list and waiting list of candidates were published on 25.10.2021. The applicants appear as sl.Nos.2,4,7 and 8 respectively in the wait list. Out of the 47 persons in the main list, except one, all have joined as LDC. Similarly, no one could be selected from Ex-servicemen category. Only one candidate was selected towards posts reserved for persons with disabilities. Against vacancy due to non joining from the select list the first candidate from the waiting list was appointed as LD Clerk.

3. Thus, according to the applicants, 46 persons were appointed from the select list and one from the waiting list. Annexure-A3 information gathered under the Right to Information Act shows that total number of vacancies available for the post of LDC till 31.12.2020 was 61. Annexure-A1 postulated for filling up all the vacancies arising till 31.12.2020 from the recruited list, however, the respondents have not appointed anyone else, except 48 persons from the list. Balance vacancies are remaining unfilled and are liable to be filled up from Annexure-A2. Non-feasance on the part of the respondents in keeping the post unfilled is illegal and thus the applicants have approached the Tribunal for a declaration that total of 61 vacancies that arose as on 31.12.2020 as evident from Annexure-A3 are liable to be filled up by candidates included in the select list and the wait list. They also seek a direction to the respondents to effect appointments to 13 candidates of LDCs that arose prior to 31.12.2020 from the waiting list.

4. Earlier, respondents filed a reply, which was later amended. In the amended reply, the respondents have challenged the very maintainability of the O.A. They admitted that applications were invited for filling up of 54 posts including five vacancies earmarked for Ex-servicemen and two for persons with disabilities leaving 47 posts made available for local candidates. After the completion of the selection process, the administration released the provisional selection list comprising 47 candidates and a waiting list of 25 candidates based on their marks obtained in the recruitment process. Sl.No.2 in the select list did not appear for verification of records. Thus, appointment orders were issued to 46 candidates from the select list and in his place the first person in the waiting list was appointed as LDC. No one could be recruited against posts reserved for Ex-servicemen. One candidate qualified against vacancy of persons with disabilities was appointed. Remaining vacant posts will be filled up in the next recruitment in accordance with t