Waitlisted Candidates Cannot Demand Change Of Posting At Their Whim; Old Select Lists Lapse After Repeal Of Act: Supreme Court

"The word ‘otherwise’ has to be read as ejusdem generis, that is to say, in group similar to death, resignation, long leave vacancy, invalidation, person not joining after being duly selected... it would be a case of unforeseen vacancies which could not be conceived under Section 12(2)." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 19, 2026, held that a waitlisted candidate recommended for a post under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, cannot seek a fresh recommendation or change of posting to a different college based on personal preferences.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that permitting such a practice would frustrate the statutory scheme of recruitment and permit the filling of vacancies that were never originally advertised.

The appellant, Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat, was a waitlisted candidate for the post of Principal in non-government aided colleges in Uttar Pradesh. Though he was recommended for appointment at a college in Ballia in 2022, he failed to join citing family circumstances and later sought a "seating arrangement" change to Meerut College. After the 1980 Act was repealed and replaced by the New Act of 2023, the Director of Education recommended his appointment to Meerut College, an action which was successfully challenged by the Officiating Principal of the said college before the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether Section 13(4) of the Old Act permits a waitlisted candidate to seek a change in their place of posting after a recommendation has already been made. The Court was also called upon to determine whether a recommendation made after the repeal of the Old Act could be sustained under the saving clause of the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023.

Scope Of Section 13(4) And The Meaning Of 'Otherwise'

The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 13(4) of the Old Act, which allows the Director to intimate a fresh name from the list if a vacancy occurs due to "death, resignation or otherwise." The bench clarified that the term "otherwise" cannot be given an expansive interpretation to suit the convenience of candidates who refuse to join their initial place of posting.

The judges noted that if a wider interpretation is permitted, the intention of the State Legislature as contemplated under Section 13(3) of the Old Act would not sustain. Such an action would allow a candidate to wait for a vacancy of their choice to arise and then compel authorities to adjust them, thereby superseding earlier recommendations and frustrating the very purpose of the recruitment process.

"The word ‘otherwise’ cannot be given the wide and liberal interpretation which would exclude a large number of expected applicants who could be waiting to apply for the vacancies occurring in the succeeding year."

Application Of The Principle Of Ejusdem Generis

Relying on the precedent in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, the Court reiterated that "otherwise" must be read ejusdem generis with the preceding words "death" and "resignation." This implies that the vacancy must be of an unforeseen nature, such as long leave, invalidation, or a person not joining after being duly selected.

The bench observed that the appellant’s attempt to seek a change to Meerut College was not a case of an unforeseen vacancy that he was entitled to fill. Instead, it was an attempt to bypass the requirement of joining the college he was originally assigned to. The Court held that a candidate on a panel list cannot be absorbed into a vacancy occurring in a succeeding year for which no advertisement was issued.

Effect Of Repeal On Pending Select Lists

A crucial aspect of the judgment dealt with the transition from the Old Act of 1980 to the New Act of 2023. The Court observed that the New Act, which came into force on August 21, 2023, repealed the previous statutory framework. While Section 31(2) of the New Act saves actions "done" under the Old Act, this protection is limited to completed acts that are consistent with the new legal regime.

The Court found that the Director’s initial recommendation of 2022 was the only "act done" that could potentially be saved. However, the subsequent recommendation for Meerut College was made in January 2024, long after the Old Act had ceased to exist. The bench held that after the commencement of the New Act, the validity of the list prepared under the Old Act automatically lapsed.

"After commencement of the New Act, the validity of the list/panel under the Old Act will automatically lapse and the authorities are duty bound to follow the procedure under Sections 10 and 11 of the New Act."

Locus Standi Of Officiating Principals

The appellant had challenged the locus standi of the respondent, who was the Officiating Principal of Meerut College, to file the writ petition. The Court dismissed this objection, noting that where the illegality of the authorities is "writ large" and the action taken is completely void, the technical issue of locus standi becomes secondary.

The bench further noted that previous judgments had already established that Officiating Principals have the standing to challenge appointments that bypass the prescribed statutory procedure. Since the recommendation in favor of the appellant was found to be wholly without jurisdiction, the challenge by the Officiating Principal was maintainable.

Conduct Of State Officials And Erroneous Affidavits

In a stern observation, the Supreme Court criticized the conduct of the officials of the State of Uttar Pradesh for supporting the appellant's "unlawful stand." The Court noted that the Director had previously stated there was no provision for changing a place of posting, only to later issue a recommendation that contradicted both the law and their own prior position.

The bench reminded the State officials that their duty when filing affidavits is to provide real assistance to the Court based on facts and applicable law. While the Court refrained from issuing adverse directions against the officers as they were not parties in their personal capacity, it left it open for the Chief Secretary to look into the conduct of those who filed misleading affidavits.

The Supreme Court concluded that the findings of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court were correct. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that once a new recruitment statute is enacted, authorities cannot revive lapsed select lists from the repealed Act to make fresh appointments.

Date of Decision: May 19, 2026