- Case
- HITESH TUKARAM ADE v. CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. OF MAHARASHTRA LTD. AND ANR (Bombay High Court, 28-03-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Writ Petition, Service Law.
Facts: The Petitioner, Hitesh Tukaram Ade, applied for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) under the VJ(A) category with the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO). He participated in the selection process, and his name appeared at Sr. No. 14 in the overall merit list but not in the VJ(A) waiting list. The selected candidate and the two wait-listed candidates from the VJ(A) category did not join the post. The petitioner requested to be considered for the appointment after the expiry of the one-year validity of the waitlist.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash CIDCO's communication rejecting his request for appointment and a Writ of Mandamus to direct CIDCO to appoint him.
Issue: Can the Petitioner, whose name was not in the waiting list, claim a right to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) under the VJ(A) category, after the selected candidate and wait-listed candidates did not join and the waitlist had expired?
Holding: No, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The Petitioner cannot claim a right to be considered for appointment.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that CIDCO followed the prescribed procedure of preparing a select list and a waitlist in the ratio of 1:3. The Petitioner's name was not included in the waitlist. The Court held that accepting the Petitioner's submission would lead to a chaotic situation, requiring continuous upgrades to the waitlist and compromising transparency. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shankarsan Dash V/s. Union of India, stating that the State has no license to act arbitrarily. The court also cited Tej Prakash Pathak And Others V/s. Rajasthan High Court And Others to reinforce that a candidate in the select list does not have an indefeasible right to appointment. The court emphasized that a waiting list operates only for vacancies arising during its subsistence and after the recruitment process is complete. The petitioner was not even on the waiting list, therefore, his claim cannot be sustained.
