The Patna High Court has held that candidates whose names appear in a waiting list prepared under the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) Rules, 2009 do not acquire any vested or enforceable right to appointment merely because the waiting list was approved, particularly where no appointment letter was issued before the 2017 Rules came into force and before the earlier process stood overtaken by the later legal position. The Court also held that once the Division Bench had directed that all unfinished recruitment processes under the 2009 Rules be cancelled and fresh appointments be made under the 2017 Rules, the petitioners could not claim appointment from the old waiting list.
The Court further held that even if vacancies existed, the petitioners could not demand appointment as a matter of right, because being in a waiting list does not create a vested right. The legal position remains that such a right must be specifically supported by the applicable statutory rules, and in the present case no such enforceable entitlement existed. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the petitioners did not deserve selection or appointment at this stage under the advertisements issued under the 2009 Rules, and that they had no vested right to be appointed merely because they were placed in the waiting list.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ritesh Kumar noted that although the petitioners were included in the approved waiting list, no appointment letter was ever issued to them by the Siwan judgeship. The Bench further noted that, after the Standing Committee’s decision, a Division Bench judgment dated April 17, 2018 in Bihar Yuva Adhiwakta Kalyan Samittee v. Patna High Court [C.W.J.C. No. 14136 of 2017/ AIRONLINE 2018 PAT 916] made it clear that where the selection process initiated under the 2009 Rules had not culminated in issuance of appointment letters, such selection processes were to be cancelled and fresh recruitment was to be undertaken under the 2017 Rules.
The Bench also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Santosh Kumar C. [2026 INSC 276] to reiterate the settled principle that inclusion in a select list does not by itself confer an indefeasible right to appointment. A select list only makes a candidate eligible for consideration in accordance with the governing rules, and any claim to appointment must arise from the rules themselves. The Bench further emphasised that, in the absence of a statutory provision permitting operation of a waiting list or substitution, an unfilled vacancy cannot be claimed as of right by the next candidate in line.
Briefly, the petitioners had applied for appointment to Class-IV posts in Civil Court, Siwan, pursuant to an Advertisement No. 02 of 2011 dated September 14, 2011 and Advertisement No. 01 of 2013 dated April 10, 2013. They participated in the interview held on May 21, 2014, but their names did not appear in the final merit list published on July 08, 2014. Thereafter, a waiting list of 11 candidates was prepared and sent for approval, in which the petitioners were placed in the approved waiting list. The Patna High Court approved that waiting list by letter dated December 18/19, 2014, and the District Judge, Siwan, later sought permission on May 28, 2015 to appoint those 11 wait-listed candidates. However, no appointment letters were issued to the petitioners.
The original select list of 25 candidates had been approved earlier, subject to rearrangement as per roster points and date of birth for seniority purposes. After such rearrangement, the petitioners in the waiting list of 11 candidates was also approved. However, before any appointments could be made from that waiting list, the Standing Committee of the High Court decided on June 30, 2015 that no steps should be taken by District Judges to make such appointments, pending further developments regarding recruitment in subordinate courts.
