Do Waiting List Candidates Have a Right to Appointment? Allahabad High Court Answers

The Allahabad High Court has held that candidates placed in a waiting list have no enforceable right to appointment and that recruitment authorities are not legally bound to prepare a waiting list extending up to 25 per cent of advertised vacancies.

Moreover, court added that a waiting list cannot remain in existence for unlimited period or a particular selection process cannot remain pending for unlimited period.

Dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by teacher aspirants, court declined to interfere with the decision of the U.P. Education Service Commission refusing to expand the waiting list prepared under the 2016 recruitment for Assistant Teachers (LT Grade) in aided secondary schools.

The petitions were filed by candidates who had participated in the selection process initiated through Advertisement No. 01/2016 issued by the then U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board. The advertisement notified 7,950 posts across 22 subjects in privately managed but government-aided and recognized higher secondary schools. After clearing the written examination, the petitioners appeared for interviews conducted in 2020. The final results were declared between December 2020 and July 2021.

However, the petitioners were neither included in the main select list nor in the waiting list, which was initially limited to 10 per cent of the selected candidates. Claiming that a substantial number of advertised posts remained vacant even after counselling, they approached the high court seeking expansion of the waiting list and consideration for appointment.

In 2022, the high court had issued elaborate directions for filling vacant posts through supplementary panels drawn from the waiting list. Those directions were later modified by a division bench, which directed the State to first verify unfilled vacancies across districts and then invite options from eligible candidates before preparing a fresh panel.

During this period, the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 came into force, replacing the earlier Selection Board with a new Commission. In February 2025, the high court again intervened, directing the Commission to take a reasoned decision on whether the waiting list should be prepared up to 25 per cent of vacancies, as permitted under Rule 12(8) of the 1998 Rules.

In compliance, the Commission passed an order on May 16, 2025, concluding that there was no requirement to modify or enlarge the existing waiting list. The Commission took the position that Rule 12(8) uses the expression “not larger than twenty-five percent,” which prescribes a maximum limit but does not mandate preparation of a waiting list of that size in every case.

Challenging this decision, the petitioners argued that the Commission had adopted varying percentages for different subjects without any uniform standard, rendering the exercise arbitrary. They contended that since vacancies continued to exist, denial of appointment amounted to unfair exclusion, particularly for candidates who were close in merit to the last selected candidates.

The State government and the Commission opposed the petitions, asserting that the recruitment process had commenced nearly a decade ago and could not be kept alive indefinitely. They argued that candidates in a waiting list do not acquire a vested right to appointment and that administrative discretion in determining the size of the waiting list is recognised by law.

The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery accepted the State’s position, holding that Rule 12(8) merely restrains authorities from exceeding the 25 per cent ceiling and does not impose a mandatory duty to prepare a waiting list of that extent. Court noted that the rule does not use language such as “not less than,” which could have suggested a compulsory minimum.

Court further observed that it is well settled that inclusion in a waiting list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment and that recruitment processes must attain finality within a reasonable timeframe. Prolonging selections for years, court said, undermines certainty and effective administration.

While observing that adoption of a uniform criterion would have been desirable, court held that lack of uniformity alone does not render the decision illegal or arbitrary. The petitioners, it noted, had failed to demonstrate violation of any statutory provision or mala fides in the decision-making process.

Concluding that the recruitment process stood concluded and that the discretion exercised by the authorities was within the bounds of law, the high court dismissed all the writ petitions.

Case Title: Nitish Maurya And 4 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Judgment Date: November 19, 2025

Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery