The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has held that mere participation in a recruitment process does not confer any enforceable right to appointment, especially when a candidate fails to secure a place in the select or waiting list. The Court reiterated that the State is under no legal obligation to fill all advertised vacancies.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani delivered the judgment in WP(C) No. 482/2022, dismissing the writ petition filed by one Sushant Khajuria, who had applied for the post of Probationary Officer in the Jammu & Kashmir Bank pursuant to Notification Nos. JKB/HR-Rectt-2020-27 & 28 dated 06.10.2018.
Background
The petitioner, a Mechanical Engineering graduate, participated in the selection process for 175 advertised posts and appeared in both the written examination and interview. Although 138 candidates were appointed and some vacancies remained unfilled, the petitioner—despite securing higher marks than some who did not join—was neither selected nor included in the waiting list.
He subsequently submitted representations and later approached the High Court, seeking appointment against the unfilled vacancies on the ground that he had secured higher merit than others.
Respondent’s Stand
The Bank, represented by AAG Mr. Raman Sharma, submitted that the petitioner had secured 61.22 marks, which was below the cutoff for both the main selection list (last candidate: 61.65 marks) and the waiting list (last candidate: 61.27 marks). As per the advertisement terms, only candidates figuring in the select or waiting list could be considered for appointment, and the waiting list had expired on 31.03.2021.
The Bank argued that since the petitioner accepted all terms of the advertisement, he could not now claim a right contrary to those terms.
Court’s Observations & Decesion
The Court extensively relied on precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, where it was held:
“It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed… The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.”
Similarly, the Court cited State of Orissa v. Bhikari Charan Khuntia, (2003) 10 SCC 144, to affirm that the decision to fill or not to fill vacancies is a matter of policy, and courts cannot interfere unless the decision is arbitrary.
In the present case, the Court noted:
“Undoubtedly, the petitioner has neither figured in the select list nor in the waiting list… the petitioner cannot, in law, seek his selection and appointment against the leftover vacancies… having voluntarily and without any objection or reservation participated in the process.”
Holding the writ petition to be “grossly misconceived,” the Court dismissed it along with the connected application.
