The Chhattisgarh High Court clarifies that when a candidate asserts their claim for appointment from a waiting list within its validity period, and the vacancy arises during that period, administrative or procedural delays on the part of authorities cannot defeat the candidate’s right to appointment; this upholds Supreme Court and High Court precedent and is binding in government recruitment across sectors.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/4316/2023 of NILKANTH KUMAR SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010216932023 |
| Date of Registration | 07-07-2023 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 (Order passed on: 17-10-2025) |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; persuasive authority for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law / Public Service Recruitment |
| Questions of Law | Whether expiry of a waiting list robs an eligible candidate of the right to appointment when the claim is made and vacancy arises during its validity, but appointment is delayed solely due to administrative inaction of the authorities. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that a candidate who asserts his claim for appointment from a waiting list within the validity period, and in relation to a vacancy that arises during that period, cannot be denied appointment merely due to administrative delays in disposal of his claim, or expiry of the waiting list subsequently. The petitioner demonstrated vigilance and timely representations while the delay was solely caused by authorities’ inaction in obtaining required documents and processing the appointment. The authorities’ procedural or administrative lapses cannot defeat the candidate’s rightful claim, and issuing appointment to a deceased person after list expiry underscores the arbitrariness. The precedent recognizes that a right to be considered for appointment crystallizes within the period of waiting list validity and delay by the State does not extinguish that right. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Established that timely assertion of a claim to a post, with the vacancy arising during the life of the panel, entitles a candidate to appointment. State actors’ inaction or delays are not grounds to penalize eligible candidates. Prior judicial authorities emphasized administrative efficiency and fairness over rigid technicality of expired lists. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, first in OBC waiting list for Sports Officer, timely asserted claim after death of an appointed OBC candidate (Amit Verma) who did not join service. Multiple representations were made within the waiting list validity. Delay in obtaining the death certificate and initiating appointment was solely due to official inaction. Department belatedly sought list extension, which was refused by CGPSC after list expiry. Appointment order post-list expiry was wrongly issued to the deceased. Court found no fault of the petitioner and attributed delay entirely to the authorities. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; Department of Higher Education and other state public service recruiting authorities |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court, and public sector employers facing similar factual scenarios across India |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Firmly reiterates that if a candidate asserts their claim for appointment from the waiting list within its validity, and the relevant vacancy arises during this period, subsequent administrative inaction cannot defeat the candidate’s right.
- Clarifies that departments cannot take advantage of their own procedural delay to deny legitimate claims; late list expiry is not a bar in such circumstances.
- Highlights that appointment to a deceased candidate after list expiry is irregular and strengthens the aggrieved candidate’s claim.
- Provides robust argumentation for use in writ petitions where inaction, not candidate conduct, caused loss of employment opportunity due to expired waiting lists.
- Cites and applies Supreme Court and High Court precedent — can be used to rebut objections from authorities relying on the principle that waiting list expiry alone defeats the claim.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court established that the petitioner was the first eligible candidate in the OBC waiting list, and that an OBC vacancy arose upon the death of a selected candidate (Amit Verma) before joining.
- It was undisputed that the petitioner made multiple timely representations during the validity of the waiting list requesting appointment to the newly arisen vacancy.
- Delay in handling the request for appointment and in obtaining necessary documentation (death certificate) was solely attributable to the respondents’ administrative inaction.
- The Court relied on Supreme Court decisions such as State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup Saroj, State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sat Pal, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Abhishek Shukla, all holding that expiry of a panel during pendency of a candidate’s claim does not defeat entitlement if the claim and the vacancy both arose within the validity period.
- The High Court also cited its own earlier decisions in Uttam Kumar Bareth and Ishwar Sharan Gupta, reinforcing that administrative lapse is not a valid basis to penalize a deserving candidate.
- The appointment of a deceased candidate after waiting list expiry was noted as grossly irregular and clear evidence of arbitrary administrative practice.
- The Court concluded that denying the petitioner’s appointment would perpetuate administrative arbitrariness, and directed authorities to appoint the petitioner within eight weeks.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Was the first eligible candidate in the OBC waiting list.
- Asserted claim for appointment promptly after learning of the OBC selectee’s (Amit Verma’s) death, within list validity.
- Delay in appointment solely due to authorities’ inaction in obtaining and verifying the death certificate and related formalities.
- Issuance of appointment order to a deceased person after the list expired proved lack of due diligence, not lack of intent to fill vacancy.
- Relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments holding that expiry of a panel during the pendency of a valid claim does not defeat the candidate’s right.
State
- Appointment from the waiting list after its expiry is legally impermissible; CGPSC refused further extension.
- The recruitment process strictly followed CGPSC’s selection and waiting lists; authorities have no power to appoint from an expired list.
- All efforts were made to inquire into the circumstances of the selectee’s death and to seek list extension from CGPSC; extension was denied.
- Administrative lapses, if any (such as appointment order to deceased), are being addressed, but confer no legal right on petitioner.
- Cited case law to argue that mere placement in a waiting list does not confer an enforceable right of appointment after expiry of the list, especially without CGPSC approval.
Respondent No. 3 (CGPSC)
- Supported State’s stand that no candidate may be appointed from an expired waiting list.
- Emphasized that the Commission’s role is limited to conducting selection and furnishing lists; it cannot authorize appointments beyond list validity.
- Extension of the waiting list was expressly refused, and no right accrues to the petitioner post expiry.
- The petition suffers from laches due to non-challenge of final refusal for list extension.
Factual Background
The petitioner participated in the CGPSC recruitment for Sports Officer, applied under the OBC category, and secured first position on the OBC waiting list. After selection, one OBC candidate (Amit Verma) passed away before joining service. The petitioner timely requested appointment on multiple occasions within the extended validity period of the waiting list. Delay occurred due to authorities’ slow action in procuring the death certificate and completing formalities. The Department sought an extension of the waiting list after expiry, which was declined by CGPSC. Subsequently, an appointment order was wrongly issued to the deceased candidate. The petition challenged the authorities’ failure to appoint the petitioner, arguing he should not be penalized for delay not attributable to him.
Statutory Analysis
- The recruitment was governed by the procedures and rules of CGPSC, including provisions for select and waiting lists with specified validity.
- Waiting list was initially valid for 18 months, later extended by CGPSC for another six months.
- Supreme Court and High Court precedent interpreted in conjunction with service rules indicating that an asserted claim and vacancy during panel validity creates an enforceable entitlement.
- No statutory provision supports appointment from a waiting list after expiry unless the claim and vacancy both originated during validity.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms and applies existing Supreme Court and High Court precedent on the rights of waiting list candidates and the effect of administrative delay.