In Brief
The appellant, a teacher appointed in 2007, was challenged by a fifth respondent who sought appointment based on a Select List from 2003. The Supreme Court held that after sixteen years, an ancient select list could not ground appointment rights. Moreover, the fifth respondent's four-year delay in contesting the appointment disentitled her to relief. Since the appellant had been regularized and continued in service for six years thereafter, equities favored her retention. The Court allowed the appeal, holding that disrupting a long-regularized career to benefit a disappointed candidate from an obsolete list was neither just nor expedient.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.