In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari by assailing an order dated 09-09-2025 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (CAT), whereby an original application by the petitioner was dismissed, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan found no perversity in the impugned order and refused to interfere with the same.
In 2014, the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) invited applications to the post of PGT (Sanskrit) – (Female). Sixteen vacancies were notified, out of which four were earmarked for the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. The petitioner participated in the selection process and applied for the same in the OBC category. Upon the declaration of results, three candidates were appointed in the OBC category, whereas the candidature of one candidate was kept pending for a considerable time to verify her OBC certificate.
The petitioner was placed at serial no. 2 in the OBC waitlist. She sought clarification on the status of the fourth vacancy and was informed that the fourth candidate’s candidature was still under consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the original application, during the pendency of which, the fourth candidate’s candidature was cancelled.
In the original application, the petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to consider her for appointment to the said post, against the unfilled vacancy in the OBC category. The petitioner was placed at serial no. 2 on the unselected OBC waitlist pursuant to an advertisement issued by the DSSSB.
While noticing that one of the four advertised OBC vacancies remained unfilled and that the candidature of one selected OBC candidate was cancelled, the CAT declined relief to the petitioner on the ground that the waiting panel had expired on 09-10-2017 and that the cancellation of the said candidature could not revive or extend an exhausted panel.
The Court reiterated that inclusion in a waitlist does not confer any vested right to appointment, but only a limited right to be considered, subject to the availability of a vacancy during the waitlist panel’s validity period, unless the governing rules provide otherwise. It was stated that there was no material of record to demonstrate that the first waitlist candidate was unavailable, unwilling, or otherwise disqualified during the panel’s validity period, and therefore no enforceable right to consideration accrued to the petitioner.
The Court noted that the waiting panel remained valid for one year and that the original application was instituted after its expiry. It was also noted that the fourth candidate’s candidature was cancelled nearly a year after the panel’s expiry. The Court stated that the vacancy crystallised when the waitlist panel had already lapsed, and that a lapsed panel cannot be operated by a subsequent vacancy.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer v. Yati Jain & Ors. 2026 INSC 64, the Court stated that a vacancy arising after the expiry of the waiting list must be filled only through a fresh recruitment process, and that the limited right of a waitlisted candidate does not survive the lapse of the panel. It was said that the petitioner’s contention that the result could not be treated as final as long as the candidature of one candidate remained pending was misconceived. The Court said that accepting such a contention would render the life of the waitlist panels indeterminate and contingent on the verification timeline.
The Court stated that CAT had applied the correct legal position in holding that the cancellation of candidature in September 2018 could not revive a panel that had lapsed in October 2017. The Court opined that the petitioner did not possess any subsisting or enforceable right to seek appointment against the post in question. It was held that the petitioner never entered the zone of consideration, as there was no material to show that the candidature of the first candidate in the waitlist had been exhausted.
The Court held that the impugned order did not warrant interference, as it contained no jurisdictional error and was neither perverse nor illegal. Thus, the petition was dismissed.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Anil Singhal
For Respondent – Ms. Avnish Ahlawat (SC), Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam, Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat
