Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 549

2026 JHHC 11643
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SANJAY PRASAD, JJ.
Amit Kumar, S/o. Arun Kumar Jha - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, through the Secretary (Posts) and Chairman, Postal Service Board, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 6057 of 2025
Decided On : 21-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kashish Tiwary.
For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, D.S.G.I., Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, C.G.C.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kashish Tiwary
For the Respondents: Prashant Kr. Singh, Abhijeet Kr. Singh

A position on a merit list does not confer a vested right to appointment. Administrative policy decisions adjusting vacancy counts to accommodate previous-year candidates are permissible and do not violate equality principles in the absence of procedural perversity or violation of established recruitment rules.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Law - Recruitment process - Vested right versus expectancy - Selection against limited vacancies - Administrative decision to adjust vacancy count due to accommodation of a candidate from a previous recruitment cycle - Judicial review restricted to legality and propriety of process - Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to substitute findings unless there is error of law or perversity on the face of the record - Vested right defined as interest independent of contingency and does not arise until an appointment order is passed by a competent authority - No violation of equality before law or equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16. (Paras 38, 39, 47, 50, 53, 56)

(B) Service Law - Selection process completion - Exhaustion of vacancies - Once a selection process concludes and notified vacancies are filled, no further right accrues for candidates on merit list for subsequent appointments in the absence of explicit rules - A candidate's rank on a merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment beyond available notified vacancies. (Paras 21, 33, 44)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner participated in a departmental examination as a candidate for promotion to a specific cadre. Despite ranking 4th in the merit list against 3 notified vacancies, the petitioner was not appointed. An administrative correction was made to accommodate a candidate from a previous year's recruitment cycle, resulting in the reduction of total vacancies for the relevant period from 3 to 2. The petitioner's challenge to this vacancy reduction was rejected by the lower tribunal, leading to the current writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the administrative authority acted within its powers to adjust vacancy counts to rectify past issues. The court emphasized that the reduction of vacancies and the subsequent process of filling them did not exhibit procedural infirmity or bias. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any vested right for appointment as his rank was below the revised vacancy threshold.

Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner attained a vested right to appointment based on his merit rank and whether the administrative reduction of vacancies for the recruitment year was legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a rank on a merit list does not constitute a vested right or an absolute legal interest until an appointment order is issued. Administrative policy decisions to adjust vacancy counts to comply with judicial directions or organizational requirements are permissible unless they infringe upon constitutional safeguards or are inherently perverse.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. historical factual background of the selection process and legal representation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
2. parties' contentions regarding merit ranking and impact of vacancy adjustments. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
3. judicial review of evidence on vacancy reduction and administrative decision-making. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
4. analysis of vested rights and judicial restraint in administrative appointments. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
5. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 58 , 59)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29.10.2024 passed in O.A. No. OA/051/00315/2021 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the original application has been dismissed declining to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition having been enumerated from the original application needs to be referred here which reads as under:

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner appeared in the LDC Examination for promotion to the cadre of Inspector Posts for the year 2015-16 bearing Roll No.1100032 under unreserved (UR) quota held on 22.10.2016 & 23.10.2016. There were three unreserved vacant post in Jharkhand Circle. The result of the LDC was declared on 21.06.2017.

4. The petitioner having obtained 786 marks ranked 4th as per the combined merit list in the Jharkhand Circle. Since there were three vacancies in Inspector Posts (IP) cadre under UR category in Jharkhand Circle for the year 2015-16, he did not come in the zone of selection to the extent of notified vacancies i.e., 3. The last selected candidate i.e. Uttam Kumar had obtained 792 marks.

5. Prior to declaration of the result of the LDC examination of 2015-16 i.e. 21.06.2017, the Tribunal passed an order dt. 21.04.2017 in OA No. 051/00174/2016 (Kumar Abhishek Vs UOI & Ors.) and directed the respondents to include the name of Kumar Abhishek in LDC examination, 2014 for promotion of the Inspector posts.

6. Therefore, declaration of the result of Kumar Abhishek again for the year 2015-16 as per letter dt. 21.06.2017 ignoring the merit of the petitioner is undue and against the recruitment rules. Finally, Kumar Abhishek was accommodated in the revised and recast merit list in LDC Examination, Inspector Post 2014 of Jharkhand Circle as per Postal Directorate letter dt. 17.08.2017.

7. The petitioner submitted his representation dt. 28.08.2017 to the respondent no.1 and his claim was rejected vide order dt. 04.12.2017. Thereafter, he submitted an appeal dt. 13.12.2017 before respondent no.1.

8. Feeling aggrieved with the decisions of the respondents, applicant filed OA No. 544 of 2018 before the Tribunal and the said OA was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2018 with observation that as the appeal is stated to be pending before respondent no. 1, the said OA is disposed of without entering into the merit of the case with direction to respondent no. 1 that if any such appeal is still pending consideration then the same may be considered keeping in mind the benefit granted to other similarly situated candidates as mentioned in the OA. After such consideration if the petitioner’s grievance is found to be genuine then the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for similar benefits as has been granted to other similarly situated candidates as mentioned above within a period of six weeks of receipt of this order.

9. Since the date of appeal i.e. 26.08.2017 was inadvertently typed in place of 13.12.2017 in 9th & 13th line of page 3rd & in 4th line in the final order. The same was corrected vide order dt. 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 549

Cases Referred (2)