Candidates Placed In Reserve List Don’t Acquire Enforceable Right To Appointment Merely For Non-Joining Of Selected Candidates: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that candidates placed in a reserve list do not acquire an enforceable right to appointment merely because vacancies arise due to non-joining of selected candidates. The Court also ruled that High Courts cannot issue directions to appoint or even “pick up” candidates from a waiting list in the absence of a requisition from the appointing authority. The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta allowed three appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), challenging similar orders passed by the Rajasthan High Court in favour of candidates placed in reserve lists. The appeals arose from three separate recruitment processes conducted by the RPSC for the posts of Junior Legal Officer (JLO) and Assistant Statistical Officer (ASO) between 2013 and 2020. In each case, the RPSC had prepared a select list and a reserve (waiting) list, and recommended selected candidates to the respective departments of the State Government. In all three matters, certain candidates from the main select list did not join despite being offered appointments, leading to vacancies. Candidates placed in the reserve list approached the High Court seeking directions for appointment against such non-joining vacancies. Single Judges of the High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the authorities to consider or appoint the reserve list candidates. These orders were later upheld by the Division Bench, largely on the ground that the writ petitions had been filed within six months of the non-joining of selected candidates. Aggrieved, the RPSC approached the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction and misunderstood the legal position governing waiting lists. The Supreme Court examined several important questions, including: Whether the RPSC had the locus standi to file appeals even though the State Government had not challenged the High Court orders. When, if at all, a candidate in a waiting or reserve list acquires a right to be considered for appointment. Whether courts can direct appointment from a reserve list without a requisition from the appointing authority. Whether the High Court’s directions were legally sustainable. Rejecting the High Court’s implicit reasoning that the RPSC could not maintain appeals in the absence of a challenge by the State, the Supreme Court held that the Commission is a constitutional authority under Article 315 of the Constitution and is directly affected by judicial directions that interfere with the recruitment process conducted by it. The Court observed that no appointment can be made by the State without a recommendation from the Public Service Commission. Therefore, directions issued by the High Court requiring appointment from a reserve list, without a recommendation by the Commission, directly impact its statutory and constitutional functions. On this basis, the Court held that the RPSC was a “person aggrieved” and had full locus standi to challenge the High Court judgments. The Court reiterated the settled principle that inclusion in a waiting or reserve list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. A reserve list is only a contingent arrangement, meant to be operated if the appointing authority decides to fill up vacancies arising from the same recruitment cycle. The Court clarified that the right of a waiting list candidate to be considered arises only when the appointing authority makes a conscious decision to fill a vacancy and sends a requisition to the Commission. Mere non-joining of a selected candidate does not automatically trigger a right in favour of a reserve list candidate. Courts Cannot Compel Operation of Reserve Lists A crucial aspect of the judgment is the Court’s categorical finding that High Courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing authorities to appoint candidates from a waiting list or to “pick up” names from such lists when no requisition has been made by the employer. The Supreme Court held that directing appointments in such circumstances amounts to judicial overreach, as it effectively compels the employer to fill vacancies, a decision which lies within the exclusive domain of the executive. The Supreme Court found that the Single Judges and the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court had erred in law by issuing directions for appointment or consideration of reserve list candidates. The Court noted that in none of the three cases had the appointing authority formally requisitioned the RPSC to recommend further names from the waiting list. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgments and allowed the appeals filed by the RPSC. Case Details Case Title: RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AJMER Versus YATI JAIN & ORS. Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2026 Date: 16/01/2026 Click Here To Read Order Read More: DGCA Directs IndiGo to Ensure Refunds, Compensation for Passengers Affected by December 2025 Disruptions

Candidates Placed In Reserve List Don’t Acquire Enforceable Right To Appointment Merely For Non-Joining Of Selected Candidates: Supreme Court

Membership Required

Most Popular

Right to Videography and Lawyer’s Presence During S. 70 CGST Summons: Bombay HC

Whether Death Was Homicide or Suicide? Supreme Court of India Upholds Section 306 IPC Conviction

S. 27 Evidence Without Police Custody Can’t Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court

Parity Can’t Override Criminal Antecedents: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ‘Mastermind’ in Rs. 6.5 Crore Cheating Case

Right to Videography and Lawyer’s Presence During S. 70 CGST Summons: Bombay HC

Whether Death Was Homicide or Suicide? Supreme Court of India Upholds Section 306 IPC Conviction

S. 27 Evidence Without Police Custody Can’t Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court

Candidates Placed In Reserve List Don’t Acquire Enforceable Right To Appointment Merely For Non-Joining Of Selected Candidates: Supreme Court

Membership Required

RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular