Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Sahil Bagati vs D/O Rehabilitation on 16 March, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 3627/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 3627/2020
Reserved on: - 13.10.2025
Pronounced on: - 16.03.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
SAHIL BAGATI Age 26 years S/o Ravi Kumar Bagati R/o H.No.
520, Lane no. 2, Shivpuri Housing Colony, Janipur, Jammu.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. P.N. Bhat)
Versus
1. U.T OF J&K THROUGH, Commissioner cum Secretary To Govt.,
Disaster Management, Relief, Rehabilitation & Reconstruction
Department, J&K, Jammu.
2. RELIEF & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER (M), Canal
Road, J&K, Jammu.
3. CHAIRMAN, Service Selection Recruitment Board, Jammu.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld. DAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 3627/2020
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.4501/2019 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.3627/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
"A/ WRIT OF MANDAMUS:-
a) Commanding on the respondents particularly respondent no. 3 to operate the wait list so that unfilled posts are filled up without any further delay.
b) Commanding the respondent no. 3 to forward the name of the petitioner as selected candidate to the respondent no. 1 so that appointment order is issued in his favour being most meritorious candidate.
c) Commanding the respondents to disclose how many posts are still lying vacant in pursuance of the advertisement notice no. 04/2017 dated 28.11.2017.
d) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondents."
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 3 :: TA 3627/2020
a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 4501/2019 originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu, which upon constitution of this Tribunal stood transferred and was registered as T.A. No. 3627/2020. The applicant seeks issuance of directions to the respondents for operation of the waiting list and for consideration of his case for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the Prime Minister's Special Package for Return and Rehabilitation of Migrants pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 04 of 2017 dated 28.11.2017.
b) The case of the applicant, in brief, is that the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board issued the aforesaid advertisement notice inviting applications for filling up posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Power Development Department under the Jammu and Kashmir Migrants (Special Drive Recruitment) Rules, 2009. The applicant, being eligible, applied online within the prescribed time and participated in the selection process comprising written examination followed by interview and document verification.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 3627/2020
c) It is stated that after qualifying the written examination and interview, the applicant was included in the overall merit list and was called for verification of original documents on 12.07.2018, wherein he duly produced all requisite certificates. Thereafter, the respondents issued a select list dated 28.02.2019 comprising 28 selected candidates along with a waiting list of 14 candidates; however, the name of the applicant did not figure either in the select list or in the waiting list.
d) According to the applicant, since several selected candidates did not join their posts, the respondents operated the waiting list and issued another list on 12.04.2019 selecting additional candidates, yet the applicant again remained unselected. The applicant asserts that even thereafter certain selected candidates failed to join, resulting in several vacancies remaining unfilled. He contends that the waiting list remained valid for one year from publication of the select list and that repeated representations were submitted requesting the respondents to operate the waiting list against the unfilled vacancies.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 5 :: TA 3627/2020
e) The applicant further relies upon a communication dated
18.11.2019 issued by the department indicating that operation of the waiting list would be considered after completion of joining formalities. According to him, despite completion of joining by selected candidates and availability of vacant posts, the respondents failed to operate the waiting list, thereby depriving him of appointment. It is his case that such inaction is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, particularly when vacancies allegedly continued to remain available under the migrant quota.
f) The applicant therefore seeks directions for operation of the waiting list, disclosure of remaining vacancies, and consideration of his candidature for appointment against the unfilled posts.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have contested the claim and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 3627/2020 application, contending that no enforceable right has accrued in favour of the applicant and therefore no cause of action survives for invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is further pleaded that the applicant has failed to place correct facts on record and is not entitled to any discretionary relief.
b) On merits, the respondents submit that the Services Selection Board issued Advertisement Notice No. 04 of 2017 pursuant to an indent received from the concerned department for recruitment of Junior Engineer (Electrical) posts under the migrant category with a notified category-wise breakup of vacancies. The Board conducted the selection strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules and completed the process by preparing and forwarding the selection list to the indenting department.
c) It is stated that the final selection list was forwarded vide communication dated 22.03.2019 and subsequently a part selection list was also forwarded after dereservation of certain posts pursuant to Government Order No. 10-DMRRR of 2019 dated 06.03.2019. The Board also forwarded a waiting list as HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 3627/2020 per rules. The respondents emphasize that selections were finalized purely on merit obtained by candidates in the selection process.
d) The respondents specifically assert that the applicant secured 19.75 marks and stood at Serial No. 87 in the overall merit, whereas the last candidate included in the waiting list secured substantially higher marks. Consequently, the applicant did not fall within the zone of selection or waiting list and therefore had no claim for appointment.
e) It is further contended that once the selection list and waiting list were prepared and forwarded, the role of the recruiting agency stood concluded, and operation of the waiting list, if permissible, fell within the domain of the appointing or indenting department and only within the prescribed validity period. The respondents deny existence of any legal obligation to extend the waiting list beyond its permissible limits or to consider candidates outside the notified waiting list.
f) The respondents also submit that the entire recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance with applicable rules and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 3627/2020 that the applicant, having failed to secure sufficient merit, cannot seek appointment merely on the ground that some posts allegedly remained unfilled. It is accordingly pleaded that the Transfer Application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
4. In the rejoinder to the reply statement the petitioner has averred as follows: --
a) In rejoinder, the applicant has reiterated the averments made in the original application and denied the contentions raised by the respondents as being incorrect and contrary to record. The applicant maintains that Advertisement Notice No. 04 of 2017 dated 28.11.2017 was issued for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the Prime Minister's Special Package for Return and Rehabilitation of Migrants governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Migrants (Special Drive Recruitment) Rules, 2009, and that he had validly participated in the entire selection process.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 3627/2020
b) It is stated that the applicant successfully qualified the written examination and interview and produced all original documents during verification held on 12.07.2018. However, despite completion of verification, the respondents issued a select list comprising only 28 candidates along with a waiting list, wherein the name of the applicant did not figure. The applicant asserts that subsequent operation of the waiting list also did not include his name even though several selected candidates allegedly failed to join service.
c) The applicant submits that after issuance of subsequent select lists, certain posts continued to remain vacant due to non- joining of selected candidates. According to him, as per applicable rules, the waiting list remained operative for one year from publication of the select list, and during this period he repeatedly approached the authorities requesting operation of the waiting list against the unfilled vacancies. Reference is made to departmental communication dated 18.11.2019 whereby the applicant was informed that operation of the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 3627/2020 waiting list would be considered after completion of joining formalities of selected candidates.
d) The applicant further contends that despite completion of the joining process, the respondents delayed the matter until expiry of the validity period of the waiting list and thereafter declined consideration of remaining candidates, thereby defeating his legitimate expectation of appointment. He asserts that the respondents cannot rely upon expiry of the waiting list when vacancies continued to exist during its currency.
e) With regard to the respondents' plea that the applicant secured lesser marks than candidates included in the waiting list, the applicant submits that merit comparison becomes irrelevant once vacancies remain unfilled under a special recruitment drive meant exclusively for migrant candidates. It is argued that available vacancies ought to have been filled from among eligible candidates who participated in the selection process rather than allowing posts to remain vacant.
f) The applicant also places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Ajay Raina vs. State & Others HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 3627/2020 (LPA No. 207/2015), contending that in recruitments conducted under the migrant special package, strict application of the one-year validity rule of waiting lists is not attracted and vacancies are required to be filled to achieve the object of rehabilitation. It is further contended that executive instructions or circulars cannot override binding judicial pronouncements.
g) On these premises, the applicant reiterates that the respondents were under an obligation to consider his candidature against the unfilled posts and that denial of such consideration is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The applicant accordingly prays for grant of reliefs as sought in the Transfer Application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 4501/2019 transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and registered before this Tribunal. The applicant seeks directions to the respondents to operate the waiting list and to consider him for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 3627/2020 Advertisement Notice No. 04 of 2017 issued under the Prime Minister's Special Package for Return and Rehabilitation of Migrants.
7. The case of the applicant is that pursuant to Advertisement Notice dated 28.11.2017 issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board for recruitment of Junior Engineers (Electrical), he applied, participated in the written examination, qualified the same, appeared in interview and also underwent document verification. According to him, though a select list and waiting list were issued, several selected candidates did not join, resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled. The applicant contends that the waiting list ought to have been operated further and that he should have been considered against such vacancies during the validity period of the waiting list. It is alleged that non-operation of the waiting list was arbitrary and resulted in denial of employment to him.
8. The respondents, on the other hand, submit that the recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance with rules and merit. The applicant secured only 19.75 marks and stood at Serial No. 87 in the overall merit, whereas the last candidate included in the waiting list secured substantially higher marks. It is contended that the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 3627/2020 applicant neither figured in the select list nor in the waiting list and therefore acquired no enforceable right to seek appointment. The respondents further submit that once the selection list and waiting list were finalized and forwarded, the recruiting agency discharged its statutory obligation and no further right survived in favour of the applicant.
9. The controversy involved in the present case lies in a narrow compass, namely, whether a candidate who neither finds place in the select list nor in the notified waiting list can claim appointment merely on the ground that some posts allegedly remained unfilled.
10. At the outset, it is necessary to notice that participation in a selection process does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The law is well settled that inclusion in a select list itself does not create a vested right to appointment, much less can such a right accrue to a candidate who is outside both the select list and waiting list. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash vs Union of India has authoritatively held that even a selected candidate has no absolute right to appointment unless the rules so provide. The claim of the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 3627/2020 present applicant, therefore, has to be examined on an even stricter footing.
11. From the record it stands established that the applicant secured marks substantially below the last candidate included in the waiting list. The merit position placed on record shows that the last waiting list candidate obtained higher marks whereas the applicant stood much lower in the overall merit ranking. The waiting list represents the outer limit of consideration determined strictly on merit. Once a candidate fails to enter even the waiting list, he falls outside the zone of consideration altogether.
12. The argument of the applicant that vacancies remained unfilled and therefore all eligible candidates ought to have been considered cannot be accepted. Recruitment in public service is governed by constitutional principles of equality and merit. Vacancies cannot be filled by travelling beyond the notified select list or waiting list, as doing so would amount to rewriting the selection process and disturbing merit already finalized. Any such direction would violate Articles 14 and 16 by permitting appointment of candidates who were not found meritorious enough within the prescribed zone.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 3627/2020
13. Equally untenable is the contention that operation of the waiting list should have been extended indefinitely. A waiting list is prepared only to meet contingencies arising from non-joining of selected candidates within a limited and defined framework. It cannot be treated as a reservoir for filling vacancies at any future point of time. Courts have repeatedly held that once the life of a waiting list expires, no candidate can claim appointment on its basis.
14. The reliance placed by the applicant upon alleged existence of vacant posts also does not advance his case. Existence of vacancy by itself does not create a legal right to appointment unless the candidate falls within the select list or valid waiting list. Public employment cannot be claimed merely because posts are vacant; eligibility must coincide with merit position recognized by the selection authority.
15. Another important aspect which cannot be ignored is that the recruiting agency completed the selection process and forwarded the select list and waiting list to the indenting department. The role of the recruiting body thereafter stood concluded. The applicant has not demonstrated any illegality, mala fides, procedural irregularity, or violation of recruitment rules in preparation of merit or waiting list. In HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: TA 3627/2020 absence of such illegality, judicial review cannot be invoked to substitute the Tribunal's view for that of the expert recruiting authority.
16. The plea that the recruitment was conducted under a special migrant package also does not dilute the requirement of merit. Special schemes may relax eligibility conditions but cannot dispense with merit-based selection. Accepting the applicant's contention would lead to appointment of candidates irrespective of merit ranking, which is impermissible in law.
17. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant's claim is founded more on expectation than on enforceable legal right. Legitimate expectation cannot override statutory recruitment procedures nor compel the State to appoint a candidate who did not qualify within the prescribed merit range.
18. Thus, viewed from every angle, the applicant has failed to establish:
a) violation of any statutory rule,
b) arbitrariness in preparation of select or waiting list,
c) denial of consideration despite eligibility within merit zone, or
d) existence of any enforceable legal right.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 17 :: TA 3627/2020
19. In absence of these essential elements, no mandamus can be issued directing appointment or further operation of the waiting list.
20. Accordingly, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the applicant, having failed to secure a position either in the select list or in the waiting list, cannot seek appointment merely because certain vacancies allegedly remained unfilled. Granting such relief would amount to unsettling a completed selection process and would be contrary to settled principles governing public recruitment.
21. For the reasons recorded above, the Transfer Application is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV