Only selected candidates have a right to appointment; those on a wait list cannot claim future vacancies.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners were applicants for the post of Watchman in Depots and Offices of Food Corporation of India all over the State of Kerala. The advertisement for filling up the vacancies of Watchman was issued in Exhibit P-1 in the month of July, 2017. The petitioners’

names were included in the wait list.

2. Altogether 127 vacancies were advertised for filling up by making selection. Out of the 127 vacancies, 13 vacancies were meant for Scheduled Castes (SC) candidates, 1 vacancy for Scheduled Tribe (ST), 34 vacancies for Other Backward Classes (OBC), 79 for Unreserved (general) categories, 31 vacancies for Ex-servicemen and 4 vacancies for Persons With Disabilities (PWD/PH). The rank list was published on 06.11.2019 in Exhibit P-2.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, as of today, there are number of posts of Watchman lying vacant in the respondent Corporation and direction should be given to the respondent Corporation to appoint the petitioners as they are in the wait list in pursuance to the selection held for the said post for which, the notification was issued in the Month of July, 2017.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioners belongs to general category candidates. All the vacancies of the general category candidates for which the advertisement was issued in Exhibit P-1 have been filled up. Only one vacancy is in respect of the OBC candidate remained unfilled as the selection of one candidate was cancelled. He further submits that in respect of the vacancies which have occurred because of promotion of the Watchman cannot be filled up by the select list/rank list published on 06.11.2019. The future vacancies are to be filled up by fresh recruitment to be conducted.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent also submits that only those vacancies which occurred because of the resignation or death of the candidates who got selected and appointed as per the rank list dated 06.11.2019 can be filled up from the said rank list till the fresh advertisement is issued for filling up the new vacancies.

6. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 08.02.1982 will not come to the aid of the petitioners inasmuch as they were not the selected candidates against 127 vacancies but, they were kept on the wait list. The duty which caused upon the Corporation to appoint the selected candidates even if there are no vacancies. If a person is selected and the vacancies are reduced, such person is to be adjusted against the future vacancies and the future recruitment shall be reduced by the number of such vacancies.

7. I have considered the submissions. In the present case, the petitioners are not in the list of selected candidates against 127 vacancies but, they are in the wait list. The OM dated 08.02.1982 in Exhibit P-12 will have no application in the facts of the present case.

Clause 4 of the said OM reads as under;

4. Once a person is declared successful according to the merit list of selected candidates, which is based on the declared number of vacancies, the appointing authority has the responsibility to appoint him even if the number of vacancies undergoes a change, after his name has been included in the list of selected candidates. Thus, where selected candidates are awaiting appointment, recruitment should either be postponed till all the selected candidates are accommodated or alternatively intake for the next recruitment reduced by the number of candidates already awaiting appointment and the candidates awaiting appointment should be given appointments first, before starting appointments from a fresh list from a s