Court quashes rejection order, holding that mere inclusion in select list doesn't guarantee appointment but requires fair and meaningful consideration of vacancies and prior judicial directions.
In a significant judgment dated October 24, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), presided over by Justice Irshad Ali, set aside the rejection order of the Uttar Pradesh Transport Department concerning the appointment claim of Mr. Bihari Lal Rastogi to the post of Enforcement Constable in the OBC category. The Court emphasized that while inclusion in the select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, the recruiting authority is obligated to act fairly and consider the actual vacancy position, recruitment provisions, and earlier judicial directions.
The case arose from the petitioner's selection at Serial No.54 in the OBC category list for Enforcement Constables under the 2004-05 recruitment cycle. The advertisement had initially earmarked 50 posts for OBC candidates. However, the select list included 55 candidates, and the petitioner claimed that as many as 30 OBC vacancies remained unfilled. Despite repeated representations, the petitioner's claim for appointment was rejected on the ground that no vacancy was available post 30.06.2005.
The petitioner relied heavily on precedent judgments, especially the cases of Imamuddin and Bal Govind, similarly placed candidates from the same selection process who were granted appointments following court directions against vacancies arising during the relevant selection year. The Court noted that the appointments of these candidates showed the respondents' acceptance of utilizing vacancies arising during the selection year for appointments from the select list.
The Court framed three critical questions for consideration:
1. Whether the petitioner could claim appointment on the basis of the relief granted to similarly situated candidates, Imamuddin and Bal Govind, who were appointed due to vacancies arising during the selection year.
2. Whether the petitioner's placement at Serial No.54 justified his appointment considering the 30 unfilled OBC vacancies.
3. The impact of the advertisement provision reserving 25% of vacancies arising during the selection year.
Rejecting the respondents' contention that no vacancies remained and that all selected candidates had joined by June 30, 2005, the Court underscored that mere assertions without detailed examination of vacancy utilization were insufficient. The Court also found that the respondents failed to give due consideration to the petitioner's claim in compliance with the earlier court order dated August 26, 2011, which had directed reconsideration in light of the Imamuddin judgment.
The judgment clarified that the recruitment year, defined under Rule 30(j) of the U.P. Transport Department Enforcement Employees Cadre (Group 'D') Service Rules, 1979, governs the vacancies and the operative period of select lists. The petitioner's claim pertained to vacancies arising during the same recruitment year, and hence, he was entitled to have his claim fairly considered.
Ultimately, the Court quashed the impugned order dated November 26, 2012, and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's claim, determining his entitlement against vacancies of the relevant selection year in accordance with the advertisement and applicable service rules. The Court mandated the competent authority to pass a reasoned order addressing the petitioner's merit position, vacancy availability, applicability of the 25% provision, and the precedent cases within three months of production of the certified copy of the judgment. If found entitled, the petitioner was to be granted appointment along with consequential service benefits similar to those accorded to Imamuddin and Bal Govind.
This judgment reiterates the principle that while a select list does not create an absolute right to appointment, the recruiting authority must not disregard material facts such as unfilled vacancies or earlier judicial directions and must maintain fairness and consistency in recruitment processes.
Bottom Line:
Service Law - Mere inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment, yet authority must fairly and meaningfully consider claim of selected candidate against vacancies of relevant selection year, especially when similarly situated candidates from same selection were granted appointment and earlier court direction required reconsideration.
Statutory provision(s):
U.P. Transport Department Enforcement Employees Cadre (Group 'D') Service Rules, 1979, Rule 30(j); Constitution of India, Article 226; Reservation provisions as per advertisement dated 10.08.2004.
Bihari Lal Rastogi v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3002436
