Allahabad High Court: Candidates on Waiting List Have No Absolute Right to Appointment

January 03, 2026

Introduction

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a candidate placed on a waiting list does not acquire an absolute right to appointment, nor can a waiting list or recruitment process remain operative indefinitely. The ruling was delivered by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery while dismissing a writ petition filed by five candidates, including Nitish Maurya, in relation to appointments to LT Grade Assistant Teacher posts in aided higher secondary schools in Uttar Pradesh.

Background of the Case

Selection Process and Initial Claims

The petitioners participated in the recruitment process conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board (UPSESSB), Prayagraj, for the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) in privately managed, recognised, and aided higher secondary schools.

Initially:

The petitioners did not feature in the merit list
Nor did they appear in the waiting list

Subsequently, they approached the High Court seeking directions for filling vacant posts across the State.

High Court Directions and Government Appeal

A Single Judge earlier directed that:

All vacancies be filled strictly as per the selection procedure
Preference be given to selected candidates who had not yet joined
Waiting-list candidates may also be considered, after counselling

The State Government filed a Special Appeal against this order.

A Division Bench later directed that:

Vacancies be filled from candidates yet to join
Thereafter, waiting-list candidates may be given opportunity based on institutional options
A fresh candidate panel be prepared accordingly

Following this:

UPSESSB conducted counselling of selected and waiting-list candidates
The Board later concluded that the existing waiting list required no modification

This decision was challenged by the petitioners through the present writ petition.

Core Issue Before the Court

The principal issues examined were:

Whether candidates placed on a waiting list acquire an enforceable right to appointment
Whether the Board was obligated to prepare or extend the waiting list to a fixed extent
Whether the recruitment process could be compelled to remain open indefinitely

Court’s Key Findings

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery reaffirmed settled law that:

A candidate in a waiting list has no absolute right to appointment
The existence of a waiting list cannot be prolonged indefinitely
The selection process itself cannot be kept pending without limit

The Court observed:

“A person in waiting list has no absolute right for consideration to get appointed as well as that a waiting list cannot remain in existence for unlimited period or a particular selection process cannot remain pending for unlimited period.”

Waiting List Limit — Court’s Interpretation

Under the applicable recruitment framework:

The Board is permitted to prepare a waiting list up to a maximum of 25% of the total advertised vacancies

However, the Court clarified that:

Publishing the waiting list up to 25% is not mandatory
The Board has full discretion to determine the extent of the waiting list
The waiting list may even be limited to 5%, 10%, or any proportion below 25%

The Court stated:

“At the request of petitioners, no direction could be issued to the respondents to publish a fresh waiting list to particular extent. It is discretion of respondents to publish waiting list to any extent up to 25%.”

Accordingly, the Court refused to interfere with the Board’s administrative decision.

Relevant Statutory Framework

The case relates to recruitment governed under:

Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982
Rules framed for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Aided Institutions
Government recruitment and counselling circulars applicable to aided schools

The statutory scheme:

Empowers the Selection Board to regulate recruitment
Permits preparation of a waiting list within an upper limit
Does not grant a vested right of appointment to waiting-list candidates

Constitutional Principles Considered

The Court’s reasoning was aligned with:

Article 14 – Reasonable classification in recruitment
Article 16 – Equality of opportunity in public employment
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation — not enforceable unless backed by statutory mandate

The Court held that:

Inclusion in a waiting list creates only an expectancy
Not a constitutional or legal right to appointment

Judicial Precedents Relied Upon

The Court’s view is consistent with landmark Supreme Court rulings:

Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991)
Held that selection or inclusion in a merit list does not create a right to appointment unless a vacancy exists and appointment is formally offered.
Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1997)
Clarified that waiting-list candidates cannot compel the State to fill posts.
Prem Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board (1996)
Waiting list cannot be treated as a reservoir to fill posts indefinitely.
R.S. Mittal v. Union of India (1995)
Appointment is not automatic unless there exists a legally enforceable right.

The High Court reaffirmed that:

Waiting list is meant for contingency or non-joining cases
It cannot be used to revive expired or concluded selection processes

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court unequivocally held that:

A waiting-list candidate has no absolute or vested right to appointment
Recruitment authorities are not obligated to extend or refresh waiting lists
The selection process cannot remain open indefinitely at the instance of candidates

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

The decision reinforces settled service-law principles and upholds administrative discretion in recruitment processes, preventing perpetual litigation over expired waiting lists.