Candidates Can't Claim Appointment From Lapsed Selection Score: Bombay HC
Copy Link
Share
Save
Participating in a subsequent recruitment drive effectively waives any right to claim unfilled vacancies from an earlier selection process. The Bombay High Court has affirmed that candidates who appear for a fresh entrance examination cannot later demand appointment against leftover posts from a previous selection drive.
A division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Dr. Neela Gokhale dismissed a petition filed by candidates seeking appointments to vacant teacher posts under the Teacher Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT-2022) drive, reiterating that a candidate acquires no indefeasible right to be appointed merely by participating in a selection process.
Key Takeaways
- Lapse of Merit Scores
Scores obtained in earlier selection tests automatically cease to be valid once subsequent examination results are declared under the governing rules.
- Waiver by Participation
Candidates who participate in a new recruitment process without protest lose the right to challenge or claim relief regarding earlier recruitment drives.
- State's Prerogative
Employers are under no legal obligation to fill all advertised vacancies, provided the decision to leave them unfilled is bona fide.
Legal Rationale on State's Duty and Candidate Rights
The High Court underscored the settled principles governing public employment processes, clarifying that notification of vacancies is merely an invitation to apply and does not confer a vested right to selection.
The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons."
The Court relied on established Supreme Court precedents, including Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India ( "(1991) 3 SCC 47": 1991 CaseBase(SC) 594), Vinodan T & Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors. ( "(2002) 4 SCC 726": 2002 CaseBase(SC) 460), and All India SC & ST Employees’ Association v. A. Arthur Jeen & Ors., to reaffirm that state authorities possess the right to alter recruitment strategy or leave posts unfilled for legitimate administrative reasons. Applying Ranjan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. and Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla ( "1986 Supp SCC 285": 1986 CaseBase(SC) 178), the bench further noted that candidates who voluntarily sit for a subsequent test cannot somersault and demand appointments based on an earlier examination's score.
The Court has following directions:
"The Writ Petition is thus dismissed except quasthe said two Petitioners. No costs."
Ratio
When governing service rules stipulate that test scores expire upon the declaration of subsequent examination results, candidates who participate in the subsequent examination forfeit any right to seek appointment against unfilled vacancies of the earlier recruitment process. The State is not under a legal duty to fill all advertised posts provided its decision is bona fide and non-arbitrary.
Background
The petitioners participated in the TAIT-2022 recruitment process initiated by the State of Maharashtra under the Pavitra Portal. Following Phase-I, approximately 10% of posts remained vacant alongside unfulfilled vacancies in special categories, non-joining, and disqualification. Meanwhile, the State enacted the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2024, altering the reservation landscape, and conducted the TAIT-2025 examination, the results of which were declared on August 18, 2025.
The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging the Government's communication dated May 26, 2026, which refused to fill the remaining TAIT-2022 vacancies. Out of the 30 petitioners, 28 had already appeared for the TAIT-2025 examination. The High Court held that the 28 candidates were estopped from seeking relief. However, since Petitioner No. 6 (Baburao Devidas Rankhambe) and Petitioner No. 20 (Jyotsna Sunil Pangare) had not appeared for TAIT-2025, the Court recorded the State's assurance that their cases would be considered for unfilled Phase-I vacancies, dismissing the petition for the remaining petitioners.
Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 8875 OF 2026
Case Title: Bhagwat Govindrao Zambre & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms Purva S. Pradhan, with Vishal V. Shinde
For the Respondent(s): Mr O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P., with Priyanka Chavan, AGP
Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 4691
Similar Articles
Breaking News
