No Indefeasible Right To Appointment Against Unfilled Vacancies: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that candidates do not possess an absolute right to demand the operation of a reserve list for unfilled vacancies, especially when such posts have been carried forward to subsequent recruitment cycles. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, presiding as a single-judge bench, dismissed a petition seeking appointments to the post of Community Health Officer (CHO) from the 2020 recruitment process, noting that the petitioners failed to meet the initial cut-off marks and could not demonstrate a statutory obligation for the State to fill every advertised post.
Court's Observations on Recruitment Rights and Reserve Lists
The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...the petitioners have failed to point out any statutory provision imposing an obligation upon them to fill all advertised vacancies, including those remaining unfilled due to non-joining of selected candidates, by operating a reserve/waiting list. This Court also observes that even if the advertisement contemplated preparation of reserve/ waiting list, such stipulation by itself would not create an indefeasible right in favour of the petitioner to seek appointment against the advertised posts as they have not shown any statutory provision indicating that it was obligated upon respondents to operate such a list for filling vacancies on account of non-joining or other contingencies."
Addressing the legal standing of candidates in a selection process, the Court further noted that even the inclusion of a name in a select list does not confer an automatic right to employment. The Bench emphasized that a select list only renders a candidate eligible for consideration according to governing rules.
The Impact of Subsequent Recruitment Notifications
Unfilled Vacancies Carried Forward
A critical factor in the court's decision was the respondents' submission that unfilled posts from the 2020 advertisement had already been merged into a new recruitment drive initiated in 2024 by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board. The Court found that since the vacancies no longer existed in the context of the old recruitment, no effective direction could be issued for a waiting list.
The Court has following directions:
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."
Background:
The dispute originated from an advertisement dated August 31, 2020, issued by the National Health Mission (NHM) for the contractual post of Community Health Officer. Initially inviting applications for 6,310 posts, the number was later increased to 7,810. The petitioners participated in the selection process but failed to secure marks above the prescribed cut-off in their respective categories.
The petitioners approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arguing that over 800 posts remained vacant due to non-verification of documents and non-joining of selected candidates. They contended that the respondents acted arbitrarily by not operating a reserve or waiting list as mentioned in the advertisement. They sought directions for the respondents to publish a select list from the waiting list to fill the 800 vacant posts.
The State, however, argued that the petitioners had no right to appointment after failing to meet the cut-off. They further clarified that the unfilled vacancies were included in a subsequent notification dated January 12, 2024, which increased the current recruitment pool. The Court agreed with the State's position, concluding that no surviving vacancy existed for the 2020 recruitment cycle.
Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7190/2024
NeutralCitation: 2026:RJ-JD:27756
Case Title: Pradeep Rakecha & Ors. v. The State Of Rajasthan & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tanuj Jain for Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC
Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 80



