No Right to Appointment After Reserve List Expiry

Case Details: Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs. Yati Jain - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 479 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Dipankar Datta & Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Yuvraj Samant, Ms Neha Amola, Keshav Thakur, Advs. & Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR for the Petitioner.
K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv., Ronak Karanpuria, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AORs, N. Sai Kaushal, Abhimanyu Yaduvanshi, Prasad Hegde & Veda Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant was the State Public Service Commission. The Respondents were wait-listed candidates from the three recruitment cycles: the Junior Legal Officer (JLO)–2019, the Assistant Statistical Officer (ASO)–2020, and the JLO–2013-14.

Under Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Legal State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1981 and Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, the Commission could keep a reserve list up to 50% of the advertised vacancies and, on requisition, recommend names from the reserve list within six months from the date the original list was forwarded to the Appointing Authority.

The disputes arose when selected candidates did not join, and the respondents, being on reserve lists, sought appointment against those non-joining vacancies. The Single Judge of the High Court directed the petitioner to select the respondents’ names from the reserve list for consideration for appointment. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s directions.

It was noted that the right of a wait-listed candidate to be considered for appointment accrues only when a selected candidate does not join and, in such cases, a six-month period for operating reserve list is to be counted from the date the original list is forwarded to the Appointing Authority, not from the date of non-joining.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that, unless the Appointing Authority makes a requisition to the Public Service Commission, the Commission is not bound to recommend any candidate from the waiting list.

The Supreme Court held that, where writ petitions were presented after expiry of the six-month time period during which the reserve list would have been alive and effective, no benefit could accrue in favour of the writ petitioners.

Further, the Supreme Court held that a mandamus cannot be issued when the reserve list is no longer alive. Thus, the directions of the Single Judge and the Division Bench were legally unsustainable and were to be set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

Order of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBSAW-34-2024, dated 02-05-2024 (para 120) set aside.
Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple (1996) 3 SCC 52 (para 50)
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 (para 89) followed
A.P. Public Service Commission v. P. Chandra Mouleesware Reddy (2006) 8 SCC 330 (para 77)
Manoj Manu v. Union of India (2013) 12 SCC 171 (para 112)
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sat Pal (2013) 11 SCC 737 (para 114)
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Swarup Saroj (2000) 3 SCC 699 (para 116)
Purshottam v. Chairman, M.S.E.B. (1996) 6 SCC 49 (para 119) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

STATE OF ORISSA and another v. RAJKISHORE NANDA and others [2010] 6 taxmann.com 137/126 FLR 441 (SC) (para 36)
State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309 (para 36)
State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra (2006) 12 SCC 561 (para 36)
Purshottam v. Chairman, M.S.E.B. (1996) 6 SCC 49 (para 36)
STATE OF U.P. v. RAM SWAROOP SAROJ 2000 taxmann.com 3084/[2000] 85 FLR 119 (SC) (para 36)
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sat Pal (2013) 11 SCC 737 (para 36)
MANOJ MANU and another v. UNION OF INDIA and others [2013] 8 taxmann.com 644/139 FLR 475 (SC) (para 36)
RPSC v. Dr. Harish Nagpal [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 554/2017] (para 39)
State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Shri Kishan Joshi [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 81/2020] (para 39)
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 (para 48)
Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple (1996) 3 SCC 52 (para 50)
Roma Sonkar v. M.P. State Public Service Commission (2018) 17 SCC 106 (para 52)
Committee of Management, Arya Nagar Inter College v. Sree Kumar Tiwary (1997) 4 SCC 388 (para 57)
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar (1975) 2 SCC 702 (para 59)
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed (1976) 1 SCC 671 (para 60)
A.P. Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath (2009) 5 SCC 1 (para 61)
Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi 2023 SCC OnLine SC 17539 (para 62)
Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. (1970) 3 SCC 573 (para 63)
State of Punjab v. Amar Singh (1974) 2 SCC 70 (para 64)
Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 182 (para 72)
A.P. Public Service Commission v. P. Chandra Mouleesware Reddy (2006) 8 SCC 330 (para 77)
Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. v. State of Gujarat 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 (para 81)
Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1997) 8 SCC 488 (para 82)
Rakhi Roy v. High Court of Delhi (2010) 2 SCC 637 (para 83)
M.P. Electricity Board v. Virendra Kumar Sharma (2002) 9 SCC 650 (para 84)
U.P. Public Service Commission v. Surendra Kumar (2019) 2 SCC 195 (para 85)
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 (para 89)
Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal [2014] 41 taxmann.com 504/222 Taxman 184 (SC) (para 95)
Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745 (para 99)
State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati (2019) 19 SCC 626 (para 100)
TINKU v. STATE OF HARYANA and others [2025] 11 taxmann.com 1281/184 FLR 196 (SC) (para 101).