Waitlist Can’t Be Used As a Reservoir: Delhi HC Denies Judicial Appointment to Candidate Despite Vacancy From Resignation

“Once Vacancies Are Filled, the Selection Process Comes to an End”, In a ruling of significant impact for judicial aspirants across India, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking appointment to the Delhi Judicial Service arising from the resignation of a waitlisted appointee, holding that such post-resignation vacancies are fresh vacancies, not fillable through the existing waitlist.

Deciding W.P.(C) 5830/2024, a Division Bench comprising Justice Om Prakash Shukla and Justice C. Hari Shankar ruled against Aadya Antya, a candidate who ranked 93 in the 2022 Delhi Judicial Service Examination and stood 5th on the unreserved category waitlist. She had approached the Court after the resignation of Ms. Riya Goyal, a candidate who joined from the same waitlist but later left to join Punjab Judicial Service.

“Once a candidate joins against a vacancy, no scope remains to work Rule 18(v) for that vacancy,” the Court firmly stated, distinguishing resignation-based vacancies from those arising due to non-joining.

The Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2022 was notified to fill 123 vacancies, of which 88 belonged to the unreserved category. Aadya Antya was ranked 93rd overall, placing her at serial no. 5 in the general category waitlist.

After the initial appointments, four general category candidates from the waitlist were called, following the non-joining of some selectees. Ms. Riya Goyal, placed at serial no. 3 on the waitlist, joined service on 20 March 2024, but resigned on 26 March 2024, having secured a seat in Punjab Judicial Service. Her resignation was accepted and she was relieved on 17 May 2024.

Aadya Antya, being next in line, sought to be appointed in Ms. Goyal’s place. When her representation to the Registrar of the High Court yielded no response, she moved the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, invoking Rule 18(vii) of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, which provides that:

“The Select List prepared for all categories of officials shall be valid till the next Select List is published.”

The Petitioner’s Argument: “A Resignation Within a Year Should Not Create a Fresh Vacancy”

Senior Advocate Mr. J. Sai Deepak, appearing for Aadya, argued that:

• The very purpose of a waitlist is to fill such emergent vacancies;

• Since the select list remained valid and no fresh selection had been made, the petitioner was eligible;

• DoPT’s Office Memorandum dated 13.06.2000, and the decision in Sujal Gautam v. Union of India supported the position that vacancies arising from resignation within one year must be filled from the existing waitlist;

• Riya Goyal’s resignation just days after joining, after already having been appointed in Punjab Judicial Service, was an act of concealment, and thus her appointment should be treated as void ab initio.

The Respondent’s Stand: “Rules Only Recognize Vacancy Due to Non-Joining, Not Resignation”

The High Court's counsel strongly opposed the petition, relying on Rule 18(vi) which states:

“The vacancy so created by virtue of clause (v)... may be offered to the next candidate, as per order of merit in the select list...”

The clause (v) refers only to cases where a candidate fails to join within time — not post-joining resignations. Relying on the binding precedents of the Supreme Court in Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi (2010) 2 SCC 637 and Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana (2023) 10 SCC 54, the respondents argued:

“Once all vacancies are filled, any further vacancy due to resignation is a fresh vacancy, which cannot be filled without fresh advertisement.”

 “There Is a Clear Dichotomy in the Rules”

While acknowledging the ambiguity in Rule 18(vii), the Court held that:

• Rule 18(vi) applies only where a candidate fails to join;

• Rule 18(vii) speaks of the select list’s validity but does not extend to authorizing appointments upon resignation;

• The rule-making authority must cure this dichotomy but till then, courts are bound by the existing statutory framework.

“Once all 88 seats were filled by candidates who joined, there was no vacant seat available to accommodate the petitioner in terms of Rule 18(vi),” the Court ruled.

Further, rejecting the analogy with DoPT circulars, the Bench noted:

“The DoPT and CCS Rules are not applicable to the judiciary... which is governed by state-specific rules to preserve its independence.”

Even the cited case of Sujal Gautam pertained to UPSC/CAPF recruitment and had no bearing on judicial service rules.

Rakhi Ray Still Binding: Waitlist Not a Reservoir

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rakhi Ray, the High Court reiterated:

“Once notified vacancies are filled, the selection process comes to an end... Waiting list cannot be used as a reservoir to fill vacancies that arise after the process is concluded.”

This reasoning had also been followed in Akanksha Singh v. High Court of Delhi (2020) where a similar plea had been withdrawn upon being confronted with Rakhi Ray.

In conclusion, the Court ruled: “This petition is devoid of any merit... The petitioner is not legally entitled to be appointed against the vacancy arising out of the resignation of Ms. Riya Goyal.”

While the Court was sympathetic to the petitioner's position — especially considering the ambiguity in rules — it held firm to constitutional and legal discipline. The decision is a landmark reaffirmation of judicial service appointment principles: vacancies arising from resignation post-joining are treated as fresh and must go through a fresh selection process.

This case underlines the importance of statutory clarity and might well prompt amendment to Rule 18 by the Rules Committee, as the Court has recommended.

Date of Decision: 13 August 2025