In Brief
The appellants, who appeared in the merit list for a 2007-2008 judicial service recruitment, sought appointment against three vacancies that arose when higher-ranked candidates did not join. The High Court dismissed their writ petitions, holding that candidates on a merit list have no absolute right to appointment once advertised vacancies are filled. The Supreme Court affirmed this, ruling that merely appearing in a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. Since 31 general category candidates had already joined against 27 advertised posts, the selection process was exhausted. Further, the three resultant vacancies were consumed to accommodate 17 other judicially-directed appointments from an earlier recruitment scandal. The Court held that a select list cannot serve as a reservoir for filling later-arising vacancies and that Article 14 does not require perpetuation of illegal appointments to others. The appeals were dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.