Candidates Cannot Resile After Participating: Bombay High Court Refuses To Fill Vacant Teacher Posts From Expired 2022 Recruitment Cycle

"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 which cannot be legitimately denied." Bombay High Court, in a judgment dated 25th August 2026, held that candidates who participate in a subsequent recruitment process are estopped from challenging the non-filling of vacancies from an earlier, expired recruitment cycle.

A division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed that the State is under no legal obligation to fill all notified vacancies, particularly when the recruitment rules dictate that scores from a prior test cease to be valid upon the declaration of results for a subsequent examination.

The dispute arose from the TAIT-2022 recruitment process, where 10% of teacher posts remained vacant due to absenteeism, disqualification, and a lack of candidates from specific reserved categories like ex-servicemen. While the State had previously issued directions to fill these vacancies, the Government later, via an order dated 26th May 2026, refused to carry them forward, citing the introduction of the 10% SEBC reservation and the commencement of the TAIT-2025 recruitment cycle. The petitioners, who were TAIT-2022 qualifiers, challenged this decision as arbitrary and sought to compel the State to fill the 2022 vacancies from the old merit list.

The primary questions before the court were whether the petitioners acquired an indefeasible right to be appointed against vacancies that remained unfilled during the TAIT-2022 phase and whether they could challenge the government's decision after having voluntarily participated in the subsequent TAIT-2025 recruitment process.

State Not Bound To Fill Vacancies

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, which established that while the State cannot act arbitrarily, it is not under a legal mandate to fill every vacancy advertised. The bench underscored that an advertisement is merely an invitation to apply, and candidates do not gain a vested right to a post merely by participating in the selection process.

Strict Application Of Recruitment Rules

The court noted that the Government Resolution dated 10th November 2022 explicitly provided that TAIT scores would lose their validity upon the declaration of results for a subsequent examination. As the TAIT-2025 results were declared on 18th August 2025, the eligibility of TAIT-2022 candidates had legally lapsed.

"The system then generates the requisite select list/recommendations, and the names of selected candidates are recommended to the concerned school managements for taking further action regarding appointments in accordance with law."

Estoppel By Participation

Crucially, the bench applied the principle of "estoppel by conduct." With the exception of two individuals, all petitioners had appeared for the TAIT-2025 examination. Invoking the logic in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, the court held that candidates who participate in a selection process without protest cannot "somersault" and challenge the procedure only after realizing they might not succeed or that the rules have changed.

"The TAIT score provides only a common merit benchmark for candidates possessing the requisite qualifications for appointment to the teaching post. Hence, TAIT by itself is not a qualifying examination but forms an important component of the merit-based recruitment mechanism prescribed by the State Government."

In light of the fact that over 1,70,000 candidates were awaiting results from the TAIT-2025 cycle, the court refused to disrupt the ongoing process. However, the bench granted relief to two petitioners who had not appeared for the 2025 examination, recording the State’s assurance that their cases would be considered against the remaining TAIT-2022 vacancies. The petition was otherwise dismissed.

Date of Decision: 25 August 2026