Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Filling vacancies from a rank list after its expiry or for vacancies arising after the list's validity is generally not permissible unless a fresh notification or list is issued ["Radhika VS Cochin University of Science and Technology - Kerala"], ["Jaseena C. K. , W/o. Kamarudheen VS State of Kerala, rep. by its Secretary, General Education Department - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Radhika T. VS Cochin University of Science and Technology - Supreme Court"]- ["KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION vs SHEEJAMOL M.C - Kerala"]- ["Jaseena C. K. , W/o. Kamarudheen VS State of Kerala, rep. by its Secretary, General Education Department - Kerala"]- ["Radhika VS Cochin University of Science and Technology - Kerala"]- ["SAGEETHA C vs KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY - Kerala"]- ["SAGEETHA C vs KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY - Kerala"]- ["Radhika T. , W/o. Ramadas T. K. VS Cochin University Of Science And Technology, Represented By Its Registrar - Kerala"]
In the competitive world of government jobs and public service recruitment in India, candidates often pin their hopes on rank lists prepared by bodies like the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC). But what happens when a single vacancy is filled from a rank list? Can a subsequent vacancy be filled from the same rank list? This question arises frequently in service matters and has significant implications for fairness, equality, and constitutional rights.
A common scenario: A notification advertises one vacancy, a candidate from the rank list is appointed, and then another vacancy emerges shortly after. Authorities might be tempted to appoint the next candidate from the existing list to save time. However, Indian courts have consistently ruled against this practice, emphasizing strict adherence to notified vacancies. This blog post delves into the legal principles, key judgments, and practical guidance, drawing from authoritative sources. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case.
Under Indian constitutional and legal frameworks, a rank list or select list is prepared for specific notified vacancies. Once those vacancies are filled, the list exhausts itself and cannot be used for future vacancies. This upholds Articles 14 (equality) and 16(1) (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution.
The main legal finding is clear: Filling subsequent vacancies from the same list after the initial vacancies are filled constitutes a violation of constitutional rights and legal principles Rakhi Ray VS High Court of Delhi - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 127. Courts have held that the select or rank list is valid only for the vacancies it was created for; once exhausted, it cannot be used for subsequent vacancies Rakhi Ray VS High Court of Delhi - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 127Rajamohan VS The State Of Kerala - 1996 0 Supreme(Ker) 545.
For instance, The currency of Select List had expired as soon as the number of posts advertised are filled up Rakhi Ray VS High Court of Delhi - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 127. In another ruling, the rank list has come to an end once the vacancy for which it was prepared is filled, and it could not have been utilised for filling up of any subsequent vacancy which arose after the publication Jameela VS James Joseph - 2015 Supreme(Ker) 1659.
Indian High Courts, particularly Kerala High Court, have addressed this in multiple cases, reinforcing the exhaustion doctrine.
In a key precedent, the court ruled that once the notified vacancies are filled, the process is over, and the same list cannot be used for subsequent vacancies Rakhi Ray VS High Court of Delhi - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 127Rajamohan VS The State Of Kerala - 1996 0 Supreme(Ker) 545. Appointments from an exhausted list are null and void.
The Supreme Court echoed this in Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi (2010) 2 SCC 637, cited widely: Once the selection of candidates for the advertised post is over, rest of the list of candidates cannot be used as reservoir, or as infinite stock to fill up future vacancy Manjula Kachhap VS State of Jharkhand - 2011 Supreme(Jhk) 879. Similarly, No vacancy can be filled up from the existing unexhausted select list which arose subsequent to issue of advertisement Pravas Kumar Singh VS State of Jharkhand - 2011 Supreme(Jhk) 155.
In NCDRC appointments, waitlisted candidates had no legal right to be appointed against future vacancies once requisite posts are filled Justice Udai Krishna Dhaon VS Union of India - 2013 Supreme(Del) 1365.
While the rule is strict, limited exceptions apply:- Anticipated Vacancies: If the original notification includes anticipated future vacancies (e.g., number of vacancies likely to vary), the list may cover them SANGEETHA S. , W/O. GIRISH NADARAJAN VS TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 545.- Specified Validity Period: Lists valid for a fixed period (e.g., one year) can fill vacancies arising within that time, but only if unexhausted and within original scope.- Statutory Rules: In cases like LPR (Leave Preparatory to Retirement), vacancies aren't substantive until retirement, but must still use valid lists Baby Aisha V. W/o Sureshkumar vs Sukanya S. D/o Sasikumar S. - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 3173.
Even here, actions must align with rules; courts scrutinize deviations closely.
For job seekers:- Monitor vacancy notifications closely; old rank lists rarely help for new posts.- Challenge irregular appointments via writ petitions if bypassed unfairly.
For appointing authorities:- Adhere strictly to notified vacancies Rakhi Ray VS High Court of Delhi - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 127.- Initiate fresh processes for subsequent vacancies to avoid quashing.
Recommendations include:- Authorities should strictly adhere to the notified vacancies and ensure that selection lists are exhausted before considering subsequent vacancies.- For any new vacancies arising after the original list is exhausted, fresh advertisements and selection processes must be undertaken.
Understanding these nuances can prevent disputes in public service hiring. Stay informed on PSC updates and rules. For personalized guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
References:1. Rakhi Ray VS High Court of Delhi - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 127: Core on exhaustion and constitutional violations.2. Rajamohan VS The State Of Kerala - 1996 0 Supreme(Ker) 545: Select list validity limited to advertised posts.3. Additional cases like Jameela VS James Joseph - 2015 Supreme(Ker) 1659, T L PARTHASARATHI vs KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - 2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17069, Manjula Kachhap VS State of Jharkhand - 2011 Supreme(Jhk) 879.
#RankListLaw, #ServiceRecruitment, #IndianConstitution
The post of Associate Professor, Inorganic Chemistry was a single vacancy notified to be filled in, which carried the scale of pay of Rs. 37,400 - Rs. 67,000/- plus Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 9,000/- (Pre-Revised). ... State of Kerala, 1981 SCC Online Ker 14 : (1981) 2 SLR 340 was also pressed into service to emphasize that the due representation to the Scheduled Caste could not be discounted when vacancy belonged to that category and the Rank List was operative. ... H....
Constitution of India and passed the impugned judgment directing that the first respondent be given preference, as if she was included in the rank list of the subsequent recruitment. ... In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the Bank did not report the non-joining vacancy of the candidate in rank No.54 to PSC within the period of expiry of the rank list. ... He submitted that the learned Single Judge has erroneously proceeded on the basis ....
one rank list. ... Vacancy set apart for inter district transfer is filled vide order No.A3/2264/2021 dated 28.06.2021. Vacancy set apart for promotion is filled vide order No.DDEPKD/10066/20521-A3 17.12.2021." ... arise within one year from the date of approval of the list are filled up or a fresh list comes into force, whichever is earlier. ... the expiry of Annexure A1 ranked list out of which only 60 vacancies ....
The learned Division Bench, among other things, has considered two contingencies: (i) Whether a vacancy that has arisen after the issuance of the rank list could be filled up with the candidates from the rank list? ... The next vacancy, contends the learned counsel, must be filled up with a candidate from the rank list that could have been prepared by the PSC involving the candid....
Though the rank list has a validity of two years, as per Section 31(11) communal rotation is to be adhered to. The one vacancy notified under Ext.P1, for which the petitioner applied, was as per the communal rotation reserved for SC. The said vacancy was filled up by appointment. ... According to the petitioner, as per Section 31(10) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986, the rank list remains in force for a period of two years and the vacancies....
for which the rank list was prepared having filled, the rank list has come to an end. ... The submission which has been pressed by Shri George Poonthottam is that on filling up of one vacancy for which requisition was made to the Commission by the Bank, the rank list stand exhausted and could not have been utilised for filling up of any subsequent vacancy which arose after the publication ... Whet....
for which the rank list was prepared having filled, the rank list has come to an end. ... The submission which has been pressed by Shri George Poonthottam is that on filling up of one vacancy for which requisition was made to the Commission by the Bank, the rank list stand exhausted and could not have been utilised for filling up of any subsequent vacancy which arose after the publication ... Whet....
Kumar, the appellant, who is the 2nd rank holder in Ext.P2 rank list, has no legal right to claim appointment in the resultant vacancy, as Associate Professor-Inorganic Chemistry in the 1st respondent University, since that vacancy cannot be treated as one reserved for Schedule Castes. ... could be filled up from the available Other Backward Classes candidates and in their absence from Scheduled Caste candidates and in their absence from Scheduled Tribe candidates. ......
Therefore, advice could have been made only from Annexure A1 ranked list. ... On the incumbent taking LPR under Rule 72 Part I Kerala Service Rules (KSR), there occurred a vacancy, in which a candidate from Annexure A2 ranked list could be advised for appointment. ... In the absence of any other valid ranked list for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.II in the Kerala State Prosecution Service Department, the LPR vacancy which occurred on 11.05.2023 was #HL_ST....
When three vacancies of Workers had arisen in the Panchayat, the 3rd respondent appointed the first rank holder and also the person eligible for reservation from the selection list in the two vacancies and one vacancy had been filled up by resorting to promotion from the category ... In the case of three vacancies, the third vacancy should also have been filled from the selection list, as candidates from the other categories were not available in the Panchayat. ... No....
In this case vacancies have arisen on 1st June of the succeeding academic year, but within a period of one year of the select list. The notification indicated that the number of vacancies were likely to vary. Even though Dr. George Abraham relied on the judgment in Sunilkumar's case (supra), on a reading of that judgment, it appears that question regarding filling up the vacancy which is not notified did not arise there for consideration. In the above circumstance, even if it is found that the vacancy which arose in the next academic year, was liable to be filled up since it arose ....
No.15588/2015, who was ranked No.4 in the rank list qualified to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) ? (b) Whether the rank list that was so prepared was to remain valid only for a single academic year or even further till the drawing up of a fresh rank list ? (c) Could the vacancy that arose in the afternoon of 31.5.2015 be filled by a candidate ranked in the rank list prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 notification; and
In my opinion, it makes no difference even if an offer was made to the candidates in the select list inasmuch as that offer and its acceptance thereof would have no legal basis in view of the consistent ratio of the Supreme Court in its judgments that wait listed candidates cannot claim appointments once the requisite number of persons joined the posts. In fact there was no contract of appointment as the petitioner was only asked for his consent and no appointment letter was issued. In fact, the third member, namely Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Retd.) also joined, however, in this regard I do not....
Future vacancies cannot be filled up from waiting list candidates. No vacancy can be filled up from the existing unexhausted select list which arose subsequent to issue of advertisement. (vi) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 637 in paragraphs 7, 11 and 12 as under:- Once the selection of candidates for the advertised post is over, rest of the list of candidates cannot be used as reservoir, or as infinite stock to fill up future vacancy.
The facts of the present case is that the advertisement was given in the month of May, 2001 for the post of Additional District Judge. Once the selection of candidates for the advertised post is over rest of the list of candidates cannot be used as reservoir or as infinite stock to fill up future vacancy. 6. No vacancy can be filled up from the existing unexhausted select list which arose subsequent to issue of advertisement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
