In Brief
The appellant participated in a recruitment process for 33 teacher posts notified by Andhra Pradesh. Although he ranked 34th in merit, he sought appointment to a post that remained unfilled when the 18th-ranked selected candidate failed to appear for counselling. The recruitment rules explicitly prohibit maintaining a waiting list; unfilled posts must be carried forward to the next recruitment. The Supreme Court held that absent a statutory provision for a waiting list, the appellant had no right to claim the unfilled vacancy. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that employers cannot be compelled to create mechanisms—such as waiting lists—not provided for in their governing statutes. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.