The Chhattisgarh High Court clarifies that a waiting list confers no legal right beyond its validity period and reiterates that writ petitions seeking alteration in selection lists must implead selected candidates as necessary parties. The judgment upholds Supreme Court precedent and acts as binding authority for subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh public service selection disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/4647/2021 of Mantosh Kumar Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010215352021 |
| Date of Registration | 25-08-2021 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents on waiting lists and necessary parties |
| Type of Law | Service Law; Public Service Commission Selections |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The waiting list is not a source of appointment and only operates within its specified validity or for notified vacancies; after expiry, no right subsists. No adverse order affecting selected candidates can be passed unless they are impleaded as parties, in line with established Supreme Court jurisprudence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner participated in the selection process for Assistant Professor (Botany), was placed at S. No. 13 in the waiting list, sought re-evaluation of answer-sheet, and claimed his position should have improved. Selection and waiting lists were already published and appointments made. The validity of the waiting list expired after one year. Selected candidates were not impleaded. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:45137; 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591; (2014) 16 SCC 187 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Chhattisgarh, especially regarding public service selections |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals in India dealing with service selections and waiting list disputes |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that waiting lists cannot be a perennial source of appointment; rights lapse once their validity period expires.
- Explicitly holds that no adverse order can be passed in service selection cases unless all affected (selected) candidates are made parties.
- Emphasizes the application of Supreme Court principles regarding the necessity of proper parties and the expiry of waiting list rights—high practical relevance for writs challenging selection procedures.
- Lawyers must ensure that selected candidates are impleaded before seeking relief altering select or waiting lists.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the facts and the petitioner’s grievance over evaluation of his answer-sheet and claimed entitlement to a better place in the waiting list.
- Held that even if the petitioner’s position improved, the validity of the waiting list had already expired (one year from publication), hence no enforceable right subsisted.
- Cited and reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s ratio (Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association) that waiting lists only serve to fill vacancies notified for that particular recruitment and do not create rights for future vacancies.
- Noted that selected candidates, who would be adversely affected by any change in the list, were not impleaded; relied on Supreme Court judgments (Ranjan Kumar, Rashmi Mishra, Mamta Bisht, etc.) to hold that non-joinder of necessary parties is fatal to relief.
- Applied principles of natural justice and observed that no adverse orders can be passed behind the back of those likely to be affected.
- Dismissed the petition for non-joinder and on merits, as the waiting list had expired and petitioner had no right to appointment.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that answer-sheet was not evaluated in accordance with the model answer key and conditions of advertisement.
- Claimed that re-evaluation would improve his position in the waiting list (to serial no. 3) and sought directions for correction.
Respondents (State and Public Service Commission)
- Opposed, contending that the selection process completed, appointments already made, and petitioner had not impleaded appointed candidates.
- Argued that the validity of the waiting list expired, so no appointment could be made from it, even if petitioner’s position was improved.
- Submitted that the writ deserved dismissal because relief would affect persons not made parties.
Factual Background
An advertisement was released on 23.01.2019 for Assistant Professor positions by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. The petitioner participated in the written examination (held on 05-06.11.2020) and was interviewed on 07.07.2021. Lists were published on 14.07.2021, placing the petitioner at serial no. 13 in the waiting list (open category). The petitioner sought RTI access to his answer sheet, alleged improper evaluation, and petitioned for re-evaluation and correction of his rank. By the time of hearing, the waiting list’s validity period had expired, and appointed candidates were not joined as parties.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court considered the legal nature and utility of waiting lists in public service selection processes, referencing Supreme Court interpretations.
- Analyzed operation and expiry of waiting lists as per guidelines and circulars cited by the Supreme Court.
- Considered application of principles of natural justice regarding necessary parties, as enshrined in procedural law, applied analogously to writ jurisdiction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded. Judgment authored by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines issued. The judgment applies settled legal procedure regarding necessary parties and waiting list expiry.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows Supreme Court precedents on waiting lists and necessary party requirements.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:45137
- Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591
- Ranjan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2014) 16 SCC 187