No Indefeasible Right to Appointment from Waiting List: Supreme Court Overrules High Court's Mandamus to Candidates in Expired Reserve List

"Waiting/reserve list is not an independent or perennial source of recruitment… Courts cannot treat it as a reservoir for future vacancies" – On January 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Yati Jain & Ors., decisively rejecting judicial directions for appointments from expired waiting lists in public recruitment. The Court allowed a batch of civil appeals filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s orders directing consideration and appointment of three candidates—Yati Jain, Aakriti Saxena, and Vivek Kumar Meena—from reserve lists prepared under past recruitment cycles. The apex court ruled that a candidate in a reserve list does not acquire a vested or indefeasible right to appointment, especially when the list has expired as per statutory recruitment rules.

The judgment, authored by Justice Dipankar Datta and concurred by Justice Augustine George Masih, emphatically clarified that the six-month period for recommending candidates from reserve lists is a mandatory outer limit under Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Legal State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1981 and Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. The Supreme Court held the High Court’s directions as legally unsustainable, stating: “Courts cannot compel recommendation or appointment contrary to recruitment rules.”

High Court Cannot Compel Appointment from Expired Reserve List: "Mandamus Can’t Be Issued Without a Substantive Legal Right"

At the heart of the case lay the legality of appointments from reserve/waiting lists after the expiry of their statutory validity period and whether courts could issue mandamus directing such appointments. The Supreme Court held that once the six-month period under the applicable recruitment rules lapses, the reserve list becomes non-operative, and no judicial order can revive it or mandate appointments from it.

“The High Court, in our opinion, was completely in error in counting the period of six months for validity of the reserve list from [the date of cancellation of appointment]... Such cancellation could not have afforded any ground for any candidate from the reserve list to claim recommendation.”

The Court squarely overruled the reasoning adopted by the Single Judges and Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which had treated the six-month validity of the reserve list as beginning from the date of non-joining or cancellation of appointment of a selected candidate, rather than from the date the original list was forwarded to the appointing authority. This approach, the Supreme Court said, was “plainly not permissible.”

The Court also rejected the plea that judicial directions could be issued on equitable considerations, noting:
“Mandamus cannot be issued when right sought to be enforced was not subsisting on date of filing petition.”

Constitutional Locus of Public Service Commission Upheld: “RPSC Was a Person Aggrieved”

One of the key legal issues raised in the case was whether the RPSC had the locus standi to file intra-court writ appeals when the State Government had chosen not to challenge the High Court’s directions.

Rejecting the Division Bench’s view that RPSC’s appeals were not maintainable in the absence of a State appeal, the Supreme Court held:
“The appellant [RPSC] did fit in the category of a person ‘aggrieved’… and did have the locus standi to approach the Division Bench.”

The Court invoked constitutional provisions to affirm the independent status and constitutional function of public service commissions under Articles 315 and 320 of the Constitution.
“Without a recommendation of the appellant, no candidate either from the select/merit list or from the waiting/reserve list can be appointed. In these cases, without even such recommendation being made by the appellant, relief has been granted which is per se illegal.”

The bench clarified that the RPSC, as a constitutional authority, had a direct stake in upholding the sanctity of its statutory procedures and recommendations, especially when the judicial orders under appeal interfered with the Commission’s domain.

Negative Equality Cannot Justify Illegal Appointments: “Perpetuation of Illegality Must Be Shunned”

A significant part of the judgment dealt with the claim of parity or “negative equality” raised by the respondent candidates, who argued that other candidates from the same expired reserve lists had been recommended and appointed, and therefore, they were entitled to equal treatment under Article 14.

The Court decisively rejected this plea, reiterating a long-settled position that "illegal appointments made earlier cannot be the basis to claim parity."

“No claim of parity or equality can be founded on illegality… Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest.”

Citing the seminal case Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh, the bench held that:
“The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose.”

The Court further invoked the principle that equity cannot override clear statutory limitations, especially in public employment, which is governed by constitutional and statutory safeguards ensuring transparency and merit.

Expiry of Reserve List Bars Judicial Intervention: “Writ Petitions Were Filed After Reserve List Had Lapsed”

The Supreme Court laid emphasis on the timing of the writ petitions, noting that all the three candidates approached the High Court after the expiry of the six-month period prescribed under the rules. On this ground alone, the Court held that they had no subsisting right to seek a writ of mandamus.

Relying on State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, the bench reaffirmed the principle that:
“Mandamus can be issued only when the applicant has a legal right to performance of a legal duty, and that right must be subsisting on the date of filing the petition.”

Thus, even if the appointments from the reserve list were made in other cases, the respondents in these cases had no enforceable right on the date they approached the court. Their claims were found legally untenable.

“Waiting List Is Not a Reservoir of Recruitment”: A Caution to All High Courts

In its concluding remarks, the Court emphasized the distinction between select lists and reserve/waiting lists, cautioning that:

“A waiting/reserve list is not a perennial or infinite source of appointments. Its purpose is only to fill vacancies due to non-joining or resignation, and only within the life of the list as per the rules.”

Highlighting the constitutional discipline required in public appointments, the Court remarked that courts must avoid interpretations that disrupt finality in recruitment processes:

“If one were to approve the approach taken by the Single Judges, no selection process would ever attain finality. The six-month limitation is designed precisely to bring about a quietus to the process of selection.”

The Court also addressed the practical implication of judicial overreach in service matters, observing that a large number of service-related litigations arise from unrealistic judicial directions contrary to recruitment rules, which only serve to prolong uncertainty for both employers and candidates.

The Supreme Court set aside all the three judgments of the Rajasthan High Court, both by the Single Bench and Division Bench, and dismissed the writ petitions of the respondent candidates. No direction for appointment or consideration from the reserve list was sustained.

“Our sympathies are with the writ petitioners but the law being what it is, we hold that they may not be appointed on any of the posts for which they competed.”

Date of Decision: 15 January 2026