# Nitish Maurya & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 338
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-19
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7520 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nitish-maurya-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52847
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

A.K.S. Parihar, C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
 Whether it is mandatory to publish a select list
having large number of candidates up to 25%
and no discretion can be exercised to fix a
criteria for waiting list?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - It is well settled that a
person in waiting list has no absolute right
for consideration to get appointed as well
as that a waiting list cannot remain in
existence
for
unlimited
period
or
a
particular selection process cannot remain
pending for unlimited period. (Para 15, 18)

It
is
not
mandatory
that
in
each
recruitment
process,
waiting
list
is
published to the extent of 25%. The
words used are "up to the extent",
therefore,
it
may
be
below
25%,
depending upon circumstances of the
case. A reasonable decision was taken to fix a
percentage of waiting list which was neither
arbitrary nor contrary to any provision of law.

Petitioners have not disputed that waiting list
could be published up to 25% of seats of
vacancies declared. Therefore, an argument
that there must be some criteria to five
percentage of waiting list does not have much
substance. At the request of petitioners, no
direction could be issued to the respondents to
publish a fresh waiting list to particular extent.
It is discretion of respondents to publish waiting
list to any extent up to 25%. (Para 17)

It would be more appropriate if respondents
have
followed
uniform
criteria
for
fixing
percentage of waiting list, but only on a ground
that uniformity was not followed, a decision
itself would not become arbitrary. Petitioners
have failed to show that any statutory provision
was violated. A direction was provided in Rules,
which was earlier upheld, therefore, this Court
cannot interfere with the decision in Writ
jurisdiction. (Para 19)

Number of vacancies are also not on record.
Procedure was commenced way back in the
year 2016 and it cannot be continued for
indefinite period. Recruitment process has
already been concluded. Discretion exercised by
respondents does not suffer with malice or is
not an arbitrary decision. (Para 12, 20)

Writ petition dismissed.(E-4)

Case Law Cited

## Text

338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Commodities
Act),
Room
No.
2,
Barabanki, in Criminal Revision no. 128 of
2017 (Drig Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and
ors.), arising out of Complaint Case No.
191/2016 (Ram Sanehi v. Drig Pal Singh
and ors.), bearing Case Crime No. 451A/2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,
504, I.P.C., Police Station Tikait Nagar,
District Barabanki, contained as Annexure
No. 1 to the application, is hereby set
aside.
---------
(2025) 11 ILRA 338
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 7520 of 2025
with connected cases Writ A No. 15574 of 2025
& 20898 of 2024

Nitish Maurya & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.K.S. Parihar, C.S.C.

Issue for consideration
 Whether it is mandatory to publish a select list
having large number of candidates up to 25%
and no discretion can be exercised to fix a
criteria for waiting list?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - It is well settled that a
person in waiting list has no absolute right
for consideration to get appointed as well
as that a waiting list cannot remain in
existence
for
unlimited
period
or
a
particular selection process cannot remain
pending for unlimited period. (Para 15, 18)

It
is
not
mandatory
that
in
each
recruitment
process,
waiting
list
is
published to the extent of 25%. The
words used are "up to the extent",
therefore,
it
may
be
below
25%,
depending upon circumstances of the
case. A reasonable decision was taken to fix a
percentage of waiting list which was neither
arbitrary nor contrary to any provision of law.

Petitioners have not disputed that waiting list
could be published up to 25% of seats of
vacancies declared. Therefore, an argument
that there must be some criteria to five
percentage of waiting list does not have much
substance. At the request of petitioners, no
direction could be issued to the respondents to
publish a fresh waiting list to particular extent.
It is discretion of respondents to publish waiting
list to any extent up to 25%. (Para 17)

It would be more appropriate if respondents
have
followed
uniform
criteria
for
fixing
percentage of waiting list, but only on a ground
that uniformity was not followed, a decision
itself would not become arbitrary. Petitioners
have failed to show that any statutory provision
was violated. A direction was provided in Rules,
which was earlier upheld, therefore, this Court
cannot interfere with the decision in Writ
jurisdiction. (Para 19)

Number of vacancies are also not on record.
Procedure was commenced way back in the
year 2016 and it cannot be continued for
indefinite period. Recruitment process has
already been concluded. Discretion exercised by
respondents does not suffer with malice or is
not an arbitrary decision. (Para 12, 20)

Writ petition dismissed.(E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Gaurav Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2025:AHC:32016 (Para 12)
2. Ambrish Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2021:AHC:72924 (Para 12)

List of Acts
11 All. Nitish Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
339
 U.P. Education Service Selection Commission,
2023.

List of Keywords
 Service, appointment, education, selection,
waiting list.

Appearances for Parties
For
Petitioner(s):
Siddharth
Khare,
Sr.
Advocate
For Respondent(s): A.K.S. Parihar, C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Petitioners in all writ petitions have
participated
in
a
selection
process
commenced in pursuance of Adv. No.
01/2016
issued
by
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Service
Selection
Board,
Allahabad for appointment of Assistant
Teachers (LT Grade) in privately managed
recognized and aided Higher Secondary
Schools in the State. The advertisement
was for filling up 7950 posts of Assistant
Teachers (LT Grade) in 22 different
subjects.

2. Petitioners after crossing hurdle of
written
examination
participated
in
interview on different dates in the year
2020 and finally result was declared on
different dates from December, 2020 to
July, 2021. Name of petitioners were not
found in merit list as well as in waiting list
which was initially comprised of 10% of
total selected candidates.

3. In view of above, petitioners have
approached this Court by way of filing Writ
A No. 14121 of 2022 which was decided
vide a judgment dated 29.09.2022 with
following directions :-

"23.
Accordingly,
following
directions are issued to be complied with
by the Board and the State authorities to
fill up all vacancies existing as on date,
except where specific Court orders
already exist with respect to individual
posts and or candidates. Those may be
identified as on 30.09.2022.

(I)
The
Directorate
of
Secondary Education and the Board
shall cause to be hosted on their
respective websites, the Scheme for
allotment of vacant posts, to wait listed
candidates, as provided by this order,
together with date lines. This exercise
may be completed by 07.10.2022.

(II) The Directorate, Secondary
Education, shall intimate to the Board
the existing vacancies together with
subject and group wise description, as
on 30.9.2022, by 15th October 2022.

(III) Upon receipt of those
details, the Board shall offer the vacant
posts to the candidates available on the
wait list, in order of merit in the
appropriate subject and group category.

(IV) At that stage, a further
publication shall be made and hosted by
the
Board
on
its
official
website
containing a complete chart of all
vacant posts identified. It shall specify
the post/s to be left out of this Scheme, in
view of any interim order passed in any
case/s. This exercise may be completed
by 15th November 2022.

(V) Thereupon, the wait listed
candidates may be invited to submit their
fresh choice of institution/s in Rule 12 (9)
of the Rules. Necessary communication in
that regard be made by the Board to the
candidates through the same mode as may
have been adopted by the Board while
inviting
the
candidates
for
interview/original allotment.

(VI) Thus, the Board shall:

(i) call for such options/ choice
on its Web Portal that may be suitably
adapted and enabled to serve the purpose.
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii) register the choice/s so
expressed against the registered email id of
each candidate, linked to their mobile
phone no.

(iii) the choice once registered
may be acknowledged and confirmed to the
individual candidates at their registered
email id and mobile number.

(iv) not allow any change of
choice,
after
its
registration
and
acknowledgment, as above.

(VII) To express their choice, the
Board
shall
allow
the
concerned
candidates, three days' time to register
their choice/s. In the facts of the present
case that exercise may be completed
between 28th November 2022, to 30th
November 2022.

(VIII) Upon completion of that
process,
the
Board
will
prepare
Supplementary
Panel-I,
specific
to
Advertisement
No.1/2016,
and
make
available, the same to all D.I.O.S., with due
intimation to the concerned Joint Directors
(as may have been done at the stage of
original panel being prepared), within next
two weeks, not later than 15th December
2022.

(IX) The Supplementary Panel-1
thus prepared may be simultaneously
hosted on the website of the Board and the
Directorate. It may contain the details of
email id of each candidate, against his/her
name.

(X) Upon that receipt of the
Supplementary Panel-I, the concerned
D.I.O.S. shall issue necessary letters to the
concerned management and candidates in
terms of Rule 13(1) of the Rules within 15
days from the date of issuance of such
Supplementary Panel-I, i.e., latest by 31st
December, 2022, in the facts of this case.
E-mail communication in that regard may
also be dispatched to the concerned
candidate/s.

(XI) The concerned candidate/s
may intimate his willingness to join at the
allotted institution, by post and/or by email to the D.I.O.S. as also the institution
concerned. That information may be
considered
by
the
D.I.O.S.,
at
the
appropriate stage if there are unexplained
delays caused by the management in
allowing the said candidate to join at that
institution.

(XII) The individual management
shall have one month time therefrom to
pass appropriate resolution and issue
appointment
letter/s
to
the
selected
candidate/s. Thus, such letter/s may be
issued by each management with a copy to
the D.I.O.S. together with proof of dispatch
made to the candidates. In the facts of the
present case, such compliance may be
made by 31st January 2023.

Provided, in case of further time
required, the concerned Management may
issue the appointment letter/s within 15
further days with due intimation to the
D.I.O.S concerned. In present facts, such
compliance may be made, not later than
15th February 2023.

Provided further in case any
appointment letter is not issued by the
Management within the first 30 days or
next 15 days or if no intimation is received
by the D.I.O.S. concerned (as above), he
may at the instance of the affected
candidate, intervene and ascertain the
correct facts. If warranted, the D.I.O.S may
cause
issuance
of
such
letter
of
appointment,
at
that
stage,
in
that
eventuality, subject to any order by a Court
of law.

(XIII) Joining by the selected
candidates, may be ensured preferably
within a period of 15 days from the receipt
of the appointment letter and in any case
not later than two months from the date of
receipt of the appointment letter by selected
11 All. Nitish Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
341
candidate. Such exercise may be completed
by 15th April, 2023.

(XIV) On 30th April 2023, all
D.I.O.S. may again account for all still
existing/surviving vacancies, if any. They
shall send a necessary confirmation of
appointment granted and joining allowed
in
terms
of
Supplementary
Panel-I
prepared and circulated by the Board,
together with surviving vacancies, if any, to
the Joint Director, Secondary Education.

(XV) In the event of any further
vacancy surviving and subject to any wait
listed candidate/s being available on the
wait list (who may yet not have been
invited), at the end of five months, the
aforesaid exercise may be repeated for
preparation of Supplementary Panel-II and
so an on so forth till all vacancies are filled
up or till all wait listed candidates have
been offered an opportunity (as above),
whichever is earlier.

24. The above Scheme may be
applied by the Board and the Directorate of
Secondary Education to all other pending
and future, similar recruitments (governed
by same provisions of the Act), subject to
any contrary direction already issued, as
on date. These directions may also be made
applicable while preparing original select
panel, in future.

25. With the aforesaid directions,
present writ petition stands disposed of."

4. The State has preferred an Appeal
against aforesaid order and the Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated
21.12.2022 passed in Special Appeal No.
679 of 2022 have passed following
directions :-

"In such circumstances, we deem
it
appropriate
to
require
the
State
Authorities including the Director of
Secondary Education, Govt. of U.P., to
collect the data from all districts of the
State of Uttar Pradesh in respect of unfilled
vacancies
that
were
advertised
vide
Advertisement No. 1 of 2016 within a
period of next three weeks from today.
After collecting the data, the details of the
institutions and the advertised posts lying
vacant there shall be published on the
website of the Directorate of Secondary
Education within next two weeks thereby
inviting
applications
from
candidates
placed in the select panel, if they have not
already joined allocated institutions and
their right for placement has not been
extinguished, and wait-listed candidates,
who have not been allocated an institution
thus far, for their options regarding
placement in such institution/colleges in the
same manner as they were to submit their
options at the time of initial selection. Such
options shall be required to be submitted
within three weeks of publication of those
unfilled vacancies. After those options are
submitted by such candidates, the State
Authorities shall process the applications,
and for the purpose of processing the
applications they may take assistance of the
Board. After processing the applications so
submitted, the State Authorities shall
prepare a fresh panel of candidates in light
of the guiding principles enshrined in the
provisions of 1982 Act and the 1998 Rules
for placement in the institutions/colleges
notified. Such panel shall be prepared
within four weeks from the last date fixed
for submission of the options.

Let this matter be listed on 01st
March, 2023.

By the next date, an affidavit of
compliance shall be filed. In the meantime,
if there is any contempt proceeding
pending against the officials of the Board
or of the State Authorities, concerning
disputes with regard to placement of
candidates under Advertisement No. 1 of
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2016, they would be at liberty to seek
adjournment by citing this order.

It is further provided that if the
State Authorities seek for assistance from
the Board for preparation of the fresh
panel, as directed above, the Board shall
extend full cooperation."

5. Meanwhile, State Government had
enforced the provisions of U.P. Education
Service Selection Commission, 2023 in the
month of August, 2023.

6. On 19.09.2023, Secretary, U.P.
Secondary Education Service Selection
Board,
Prayagraj
has
issued
a
communication to Director of Education
(Secondary)
regarding
counselling
on
vacant posts under waiting list. For
reference,
communication
dated
19.09.2023 is quoted below in its entirety :-

"महोदय,

उपयुाक्त ववर्यि निदेशालय िे
पत्रािंि- ामान्य (1) द्ववतीय/3171/2023-24
ददिािंि 15.09.2023 एविं पत्रािंि- ामान्य (1)
द्ववतीय/2942/2023-24 ददिािंि 06.09.2023
िे िंदभा में यह िहिे िा निदेश हुआ है कि :-

1. उ०प्र० माध्यसमि सशक्षा ेवा
चयि बोिा नियमावली 1998 िे नियम 12(8) में
दी गयी व्यवस्थािु ार पैिल प्रवक्ता और
प्रसशक्षक्षत स्िाति श्रेणी में अध्यापिों िे पदों िे
सलये ररजक्तयों िी िंख्या े अगधि (किन्तु
पच्ची प्रनतशत े अिगधि) होगी।

2 ववज्ञापि िंख्या-1/2016 िे ापेक्ष
ववर्यवार, श्रेणीवार, वगावार ववज्ञावपत पदों पर
नियमावली िे उक्त व्यवस्था िे दृजष्टगत
अजन्तम चयि पररणाम तैयार िरिे िी प्रकक्रया
बोिा द्वारा िी गयी जज में ववज्ञावपत ररजक्तयों
िी िंख्या व ररजक्तयों िी िंख्या े अगधि िे
पैिल में कितिे प्रनतशत अभ्यथी होगे इ िा
निधाारण किया गया, इ ी िे अिुरूप ररजक्तयों
िी िंख्या े अगधि िा पैिल बोिा द्वारा
घोवर्त किया गया, जज े पूवा में ही चयिबोिा
िायाालय िे पत्रािंिः 4019/ चयि / 1572022/2022-23 ददिािंि 07.01.2023 िो भेजा
जा चुिा है इ िे अनतररक्त अन्य िोई
ररजक्तयों िी िंख्या े अगधि िी ूची
चयिबोिा में उपलब्ध िही है।

3. यहााँ यह भी िंज्ञाि में लािा है कि
यागचिा िंख्या-14121/2022 मिोज िुमार
पाण्िेय बिाम उ०प्र० राज्य व अन्य में पाररत
आदेश ददिािंि 29.09.2021 िे पैरा-23. खण्ि-
15 में निम्िवत् आदेश ददया गया है :-

''In the event of any further
vacancy surviving and subject to any wait
listed candidate/s being available on he
wait list (who may yet not have been
invited), at the end of five months, the
aforesaid exercise may be repeated for
preparation of Supplementary Panel-ll and
so an on so forth till all vacancies are filled
up or till il wait listed candidates have been
offered
an
opportunity
(as
above),
whichever is earlier."

4. माििीय उच्च न्यायालय िे
उपयुाक्त आदेश े अवगत होिे एविं तद्िु ार
आवश्यि िायावाही िरिे हेतु उपयुाक्त आख्या
 ादर प्रेवर्त है।"

7. Thereafter counselling of selected
candidates were also conducted and it stood
11 All. Nitish Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
343
completed and thereafter process to identify
the vacancies and to publish waiting list
commenced and since proceedings were
not expedited, therefore, petitioners again
approached this Court by way of filing Writ
A No. 707 of 2025 and other connected
cases which were disposed of vide order
dated 13.02.2025. For reference, said order
is quoted below in its entirety :-

"1. Heard S/Sri Ashok Khare,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Kauntey
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
petitioners in Writ A No. 707/2025, Sri
Alok
Mishra,
learned
counsel
for
petitioners in Writ A No. 782/2024 and
4067/2024 and Sri Ram Singh, learned
counsel for petitioner in Writ A No.
2499/2024 and Sri A.K.S. Parihari, learned
counsel for respondent-Board/Commission.

2. Issue before this Court can be
crystalized that whether respondent U.P.
Secondary Education Service Selection
Board (now "U.P. Education Service
Commission") has a discretion to prepare
panel
of
those
found
suitable
for
appointment up to 25 % of the number of
vacancies or mandatory only up to be 25%
of the number of vacancies.

3. A chart is placed by learned
advocates for petitioners which indicates
some arbitrariness in regard to percentage
of panel list whereas learned counsel
appearing for Commission has placed
reliance on a procedure to prepare waiting
list issued by Controller of Examination,
U.P.
Education
Service
Commission
wherein certain percentage has been fixed,
however, it does not appear that such
notification was approved at level of
Commission as well as whether views of
concerned
State
respondents
were
considered or not.

4. Therefore, without interfering
with impugned order, all writ petitions are
disposed of with a direction that above
referred Board ("now Commission") will
take a reasoned and conscious decision at
the level of Commission after taking views
from State respondents also.

5. Since now there is a change of
Statute so far as Board and Commission is
concerned, therefore, it is observed that
Commission itself can take a decision
though selection process in question was
conducted by Board and since matter is of
appointments, therefore, a decision will be
taken within 3 weeks and it will be
published on official website of the
Commission and Commission will also
consider a letter sent by Director of
Education dated 06.09.2023 annexed as
Annexure-7 to this writ petition."

8. Aforesaid directions were not
immediately complied with, therefore, a
contempt petition was filed and finally,
concerned respondent has passed impugned
order dated 16.05.2025 that there is no
ground to modify the waiting list earlier
published. Aforesaid order is impugned in
this writ petition. For reference, relevant
part of it is mentioned below :-

"11. उपयुाक्त ववन्दु िंख्या-10 में
वणणात प्रकक्रया िो तत् मय पररचालि द्वारा
बोिा िी हमनत ददिािंि 06.01.2020 िो प्राप्त
होिे िे पश्चात् उपरोक्त व्यवस्था िे क्रम में
ववज्ञापि िंख्या-1/2016 प्रसशक्षक्षत स्िाति िे
 मस्त ववर्यों िी प्रतीक्षा ूची जारी िी गयी है
जो नियमािु ार है।

12. इ िंदभा में यह भी उल्लेखिीय
है कि ववज्ञापि िंख्या-1/2016 प्रसशक्षक्षत
स्िाति में 25 प्रनतशत प्रतीक्षा ूची निगात
िरािे िो लेिर एि अन्य यागचिा िंख्या-
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6812/2021 अम्बरीश िुमार व 30 अन्य बिाम
उ०प्र० राज्य व अन्य में मा० उच्च न्यायालय
द्वारा ददिािंि 23.07.2021 िो आदेश पाररत
किया गया है जज िा कक्रयात्मि अिंश निम्िवत्
हैः-

As is evident upon a bare perusal
of Rule 12 (8), the language used is "not
larger than twenty-five percent". The
expression "not larger than..." clearly
indicates that it is the inaximum and in any
case does not mandate the Board to
necessarily declare a list of candidates
equivalent to 25% of the total number of
vacancies advertised. The clear command
of the statute is that the Board shall not
draw up a select list of candidates
numbering more than 25% of the total
vacancies advertised. It is essentially a
command mandating that the Board shall
not exceed the 25% limit as prescribed. It
principally places a negative restraint upon
the Board to ensure that the maximum
celling of 25% is not breached.

It becomes relevant to note that
the provision does not employ the phrase
"not less than.." which may have then lent
some credence to the submission of
learned senior counsel that the Board
was obliged to prepare a list of
candidates numbering at least 25% of the
total vacancies. In any case as the Rule
stands the Court notes that the Board
cannot be held to bear a mandatory
obligation to draw up a list equalling at
least 25% of the total number of
vacancies which were advertised. In light
of the Interpretation accorded to Rule
12(8) above and since no other argument
was urged or addressed, the Court is of
the view that the writ petition must fall.

It
shall
accordingly
stand
dismissed.

इ प्रिार मा० उच्च न्यायालय िे
उपयुाक्त आदेश िे आधार पर भी तत्िालीि
चयि बोिा िे सलये गये निणाय ददिािंि
06.01.2020 िे क्रम में जारी िी गयी प्रतीक्षा
 ूची िा ही एविं ववगध ग्मत होिा ुस्थावपत
होता है।

14. यागचिा िंख्या-14121/2022
मिोज िुमार पाण्िेय बिाम उ०प्र० राज्य व
अन्य में पाररत मा० उच्च न्यायालय िे आदेश
ददिािंि 29.09.2022 िे आधार पर तत्िालीि
चयि बोिा द्वारा िायाालय िे पत्रािंिः-4019/
चयि/157-2022/2022-23 ददिािंि 07.01.2023
द्वारा
ववज्ञापि
 िंख्या-1/2016
प्रसशक्षक्षत
स्िाति िे मस्त ववर्यों िी प्रतीक्षा ूची िो
सशक्षा निदेशि माध्यसमि उ०प्र० प्रयागराज िो
प्रेवर्त िी जा चुिी है तथा सशक्षा निदेशि िे पत्र
ददिािंि 06.09.2023 े यह स्पष्ट है कि
ववज्ञापि िंख्या-01/2016 प्रसशक्षक्षत स्िाति
ववर्यों िे प्रतीक्षा ूची में जस्थत भी
अभ्यगथायों िो िंस्था आविंदटत किये जािे िी
िायावाही िी जा चुिी है. इ िे पश्चात ररजक्त
अवशेर् है। इ िंदभा में उल्लेखिीय है कि
तत्िालीि
चयि
बोिा
िे
पत्रािंि:-807/
चयि/157-2022/2023-24 ददिािंि 19.09.2023
द्वारा सशक्षा निदेशि (माध्यसमि) िो अवगत
िराया गया था कि उक्त पैिल व प्रतीक्षा ूची
िे अनतररक्त अन्य िोई ररजक्तयों िी िंख्या े
अगधि िी ूची चयि बोिा में उपलब्ध िहीिं है।
यह भी उल्लेख किया जािा प्रा िंगगि है कि
यागचिा िंख्या 18731/2024 गौरव िुमार व
अन्य बिाम उ०प्र० राज्य व अन्य एविं अन्य
11 All. Nitish Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
345
 म्बद्ध यागचिाओिं में मा० उच्च न्यायालय
इलाहाबाद द्वारा निम्िवत् आदेश पाररत किया
गया है :-

.....16. The Supreme Court has
reiterated in Sudesh Kumar Goyal vs. State
of Haryana and others, 2023 INSC 842
(2023) 10 SCC 54 that even a selected
candidate has no indefeasible right of
appointment and there must be a timeline
to conclude a process and in present case,
recruitment process was initially initiated
in 2013 i.e. about 12 years ago and last
supplementary select list was published in
2018 i.e. 7 years ago and to continue such
process after so many years could not be
reasonable.

इ प्रिार िवीि प्रतीक्षा ूची िी मााँग
मा० न्यायालय िे आदेश िे अिुरूप िहीिं है।

15. आयोग द्वारा अपिी बैठि
 िंख्या-26 ददिािंि 07.05.2025 में म्यि
ववचारोपरान्त यह पाया कि ववज्ञापि िंख्या-
01/2016 प्रसशक्षक्षत स्िाति िी प्रतीक्षा ूची
निगात किये जािे िे िंदभामें तत्िालीि चयि
बोिा द्वारा म्यि रूप े ददिािंि 06.01.2020
िो निणाय सलया गया था जो उ०प्र० सशक्षा ेवा
चयि बोिा निय मावली 1998 िी धारा 12 (8) िे
प्राववधािों िे अिुिूल एविं ु िंगत था जज े
मिमािापूणा िहीिं िहा जा िता है जज े
िालान्तर में मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा
पूवोक्त प्रस्तरों में वणणात निणायादेशों में
ववगध म्मत होिा ुस्थावपत हुआ है। सशक्षा
निदेशि माध्यसमि द्वारा प्रेवर्त पत्र िंख्या
 ामान्य (1)/ द्ववतीय/ 2942 / 2023-24
ददिािंि 06.09.2023 में प्रतीक्षा ूची िे मस्त
अभ्यगथायों िी नियुजक्त िे पश्चात अनतररक्त
पैिल िी मािंग िी गयी थी जज िा प्रनतउत्तर
तत् मय ततिालीि चयि बोिा द्वारा अपिे
पत्रािंिः-807/
चयि/157-2022
/2023-24
ददिािंि 19.09.2023 िे माध्यम े भेजा जा
चुिा है।

इ प्रिार आयोग द्वारा अपिी
बैठि
ददिािंि
07.05.2025
में
 म्यि्
ववचारोपरान्त वा म्मनत े यह मत जस्थर
किया गया कि ववज्ञापि िंख्या-01/2016
प्रसशक्षक्षत स्िाति िे अजन्तम पररणाम घोवर्त
िरिे िे न्बिंध में तत् िालीि चयि बोिा द्वारा
तैयार िी गयी प्रतीक्षा- ूची तत् मय प्रभावी
उ०प्र० माध्यसमि सशक्षा ेवा चयि बोिा
नियमावली 1998 में ु िंगत प्राववधािों िे
अिुिूल होते हुए पूणातः ववगध म्मत व
नियमािु ार है जज में इ आयोग िे द्वारा
कि ी प्रिार िे पररवताि/ववचलिे किये जािे
िा अव र िहीिं है।

अतः
प्रश्िगत
यागचिा
 िंख्या-
707/2025 नितीश मौयाा व अन्य बिाम उ०प्र०
राज्य व अन्य िे ाथ म्बद्ध यागचिा
 िंख्या-782/2024.
2499/2024
तथा
4067/2024 िे िंदभा में िी गयी मािंग िो
माििीय आयोग द्वारा पूवा प्रस्तरों में
उजल्लणखत तर्थयों व वववेचिा िे ापेक्ष
निराधार है व ववगध म्मत िहीिं पाया गया है।
आयोग
िी
बैठि
 िंख्या-26
ददिािंि
07.05.2025 िे द्वारा मा० उच्च न्यायालय िे
आदेश ददिािंि 13.02.2025 िे मादर में
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 वा म्मनत े उपरोक्तािु ार निणीत िर
आयोग िे निणाय िो आयोग / बोिा िी
वेब ाइट पर प्रदसशात िरिे िा निणाय सलया
गया। तद्िु ार आयोग िे निणाय िो वेब ाइट
पर प्रिासशत / प्रदसशात िराया जाये।"

9. S/Sri Ashok Khare and R.K. Ojha,
learned Senior Advocates assisted by S/Sri
Mohd. Yaseen and L.K. Pandey, learned
advocates for petitioners have submitted
that respondents were directed to prepare
list up to 25%, however, they have
published waiting list on their own will
without having any uniformity and applied
different criteria on basis of number of
posts advertised in particular subject. They
have referred following table mentioned in
the impugned order :-

क्र० िं०
ववज्ञावपत
ररजक्तयों
िी
 िंख्या

पैिल
में
ररजक्तयों
िी िंख्या
 े अगधि
अभ्यगथायों
िी िंख्या/
प्रनतशत
िे अिु ार
 िंख्या

पैिल
1
1 े 5
1 अभ्यथी

ववज्ञावपत ररजक्तयों िी
 िंख्या+1

2

6 े 15

2 अभ्यथी

ववज्ञावपत ररजक्तयों िी
 िंख्या+2

3
16 े 30

20
प्रनतशत

ववज्ञावपत ररजक्तयों िी
 िंख्या+
ववज्ञावपत
ररजक्तयों िी िंख्या
िा 20 प्रनतशत

4
31
 े
100

15
प्रनतशत
ववज्ञावपत ररजक्तयों िी
 िंख्या+
ववज्ञावपत
ररजक्तयों िी िंख्या
िा 15 प्रनतशत

5
101
 े
500
10
प्रनतशत

ववज्ञावपत ररजक्तयों िी
 िंख्या+
ववज्ञावपत
ररजक्तयों िी िंख्या
िा 10 प्रनतशत

6
500
 े
अगधि

5 प्रनतशत

ववज्ञावपत ररजक्तयों िी
 िंख्या+
ववज्ञावपत
ररजक्तयों िी िंख्या
िा 05 प्रनतशत

10. They have further submitted that
vacancies are still available and in case a
proper waiting list is prepared, in all
likelihood, being very close to last selected
candidate in merit, petitioners will be
qualified for appointment on post of
Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) for particular
subject.

11. Sri Dhananjay Singh, learned
Standing Counsel for State and Sri K.
Shahi along with Sri Akash Rai, learned
counsel for respondent-Board/Commission
have supported the impugned order and
submitted that it is not mandatory that in
each recruitment process, waiting list is
published to the extent of 25%. The words
used are "up to the extent", therefore, it
may be below 25%, depending upon
circumstances of the case. A reasonable
decision was taken to fix a percentage of
waiting list which was neither arbitrary nor
contrary to any provision of law.

12. Learned advocates for respondents
have further submitted that procedure was
commenced way back in the year 2016 and
it cannot be continued for indefinite period.
They have also placed reliance upon
judgments of Gaurav Kumar vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2025:AHC:32016 and
11 All. Nitish Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
347
Ambrish Kumar and others vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2021:AHC:72924.

13.
I
have
considered
above
submissions and perused the records.

14. Above referred facts of present
case are not disputed. Only question before
this Court is whether it is mandatory to
publish a select list having large number of
candidates up to 25% and no discretion can
be exercised to fix a criteria for waiting list.

15. In Gaurav Kumar (supra), this
Court had considered recruitment process
of TGT in different subjects of the year
2013 whereas present case is arising out of
similar notification of the year 2016 and
question involved in this writ petition was
considered in Gaurav Kumar (supra). For
reference, relevant part of said judgment is
quoted below :-

"12. As referred above, it is now
much under dispute that number of posts
were advertised, result was declared for
reduced number of posts and on basis of
above referred judgment of this Court,
another select list was published and
petitioners being despite fell within it, were
not allotted schools.

13. Now the Court has to
consider whether explanation given by the
respondents that number of posts earlier
advertised remained unverified due to
various reasons assigned in detail in a long
list (subject and institution wise) has
substance. A brief chart being part of a
communication dated 28.01.2023 (from
Secretary, Secondary Education Selection
Board to Director, Education (Secondary)),
being relevant is extracted hereinafter :-

क्र० िं
०
ववज्ञावपत
ववर्य
ववज्ञावपत
पदों
िी
 त्यावपत
पदों
िी
अ त्यावपत
पदों
िी

 िंख्या

 िंख्या

 िंख्या

1.
दहन्दी
909
720
189
2.
 िंस्िृत
472
369
103
3.
 ामाजजि
ववज्ञाि

806
656
150
4.
जीव
ववज्ञाि

239
187
52
5.
शारीररि
सशक्षा

194
170
24
6.
गृह
ववज्ञाि

135
113
22
7.
उदूा
35
27
08
8.
िला
267
243
24
9.
ववज्ञाि
929
713
216
10.
अिंग्रेजी
848
676
172
11.
गणणत
1036
805
231
12.
वाणणज्य
45
36
09

14. As referred above, total
number of verified posts are 4715 and
number of unverified posts are 1200 and
specific details are also provided in subject
wise list annexed with personal affidavit
such as चयि बोिा द्वारा चयनित, त्यापि
िा िारण अिंकित िहीिं, पद भरा हुआ, पद दो
बार अगधयागचत है, त्यावपत/अ त्यावपत
 ूचिा अप्राप्त, स्थािान्तरण हो चुिा है,
 ामान्य जानत िा िोटा पूणा, दोबारा अिंकित हो
गया, िवीि जिशजक्त में पद माप्त या पद
िम, मृति आगश्रत िोटे े पद भरा इत्यादद.
Such details being part of a personal
affidavit and without any contrary material
could not be considered to be false. It is
true that such exercise ought to be
undertaken when initially number of posts
were advertised. It appears that it were
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
advertised
in
haste
without
proper
verification of clear and vacant posts.

15. There is no material to
dispute reasons assigned in the chart and
details referred above and once there are
no vacant posts, claim of petitioners cannot
be accepted.

16. The Supreme Court has
reiterated in Sudesh Kumar Goyal vs.
State of Haryana and others, 2023 INSC
842 : (2023) 10 SCC 54 that even a
selected candidate has no indefeasible right
of appointment and there must be a
timeline to conclude a process and in
present case, recruitment process was
initially initiated in 2013 i.e. about 12
years ago and last supplementary select list
was published in 2018 i.e. 7 years ago and
to continue such process after so many
years could not be reasonable. Relevant
paragraph of Sudesh Kumar (supra) is
quoted below :-

"18. In view of the reasoning
given by the respondents for appointing
only 13 selected candidates leaving the
appellant who was at Sl. No. 14, we are of
the opinion that the respondents have
justified the appointments and have not
acted in an arbitrary manner. The
respondents have acted fairly and logically
without any malice against the appellant.
Thus, on the touchstone of the decision
cited on behalf of the appellant himself, we
do not find any arbitrariness on the part of
the respondents. Therefore, the decision of
the Division Bench of the High Court is not
liable to be disturbed on the above count,
more particularly when the appellant has
not acquired any indefeasible right to be
appointed because he qualified in the
selection process.

20. This apart, as may be noticed
that
the
procedure
for
selection
of
superior/higher judicial service officers by
direct recruitment from the Bar was
initiated by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court way back in the year 2007 and now
we are in the year 2023 meaning thereby
that 16 years have passed by in between. It
would be a travesty of justice to keep open
the selection process for such a long time
and to direct at this stage to make any
appointment on the basis of a selection
process initiated so far back. For this
additional reason also, we do not deem it
proper to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order [Sudesh Kumar Goyal
v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 16211 of
2009 sub nom Keshav Kaushik v. State of
Haryana, 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 5043] of
the High Court."

17. Accordingly, present bunch of
writ petitions are dismissed."

16. In Ambrish Kumar (supra), this
Court has held as follows:-

"The
sole
question
which
therefore
arises
for
consideration
is
whether the Board was obliged to prepare
a select list comprising of names equivalent
to 25% of the total number of vacancies
which were advertised.

As is evident upon a bare perusal
of Rule 12 (8), the language used is "not
larger than twenty-five percent". The
expression "not larger than.." clearly
indicates that it is the maximum and in any
case does not mandate the Board to
necessarily declare a list of candidates
equivalent to 25% of the total number of
vacancies advertised. The clear command
of the statute is that the Board shall not
draw up a select list of candidates
numbering more than 25% of the total
vacancies advertised. It is essentially a
command mandating that the Board shall
not exceed the 25% limit as prescribed. It
principally places a negative restraint upon
11 All. Gobinddas & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
349
the Board to ensure that the maximum
ceiling of 25% is not breached.

It becomes relevant to note that
the provision does not employ the phrase
"not less than.." which may have then lent
some credence to the submission of learned
senior counsel that the Board was obliged
to prepare a list of candidates numbering
at least 25% of the total vacancies.

In any case as the Rule stands the
Court notes that the Board cannot be held
to bear a mandatory obligation to draw up
a list equalling at least 25% of the total
number
of
vacancies
which
were
advertised. In light of the interpretation
accorded to Rule 12(8) above and since no
other argument was urged or addressed,
the Court is of the view that the writ
petition must fail.

It
shall
accordingly
stand
dismissed."

17.
In
aforesaid
circumstances,
petitioners' petitioners have not disputed
that waiting list could be published up to
25% of seats of vacancies declared.
Therefore, an argument that there must be
some criteria to five percentage of waiting
list does not have much substance. At the
request of petitioners, no direction could be
issued to the respondents to publish a fresh
waiting list to particular extent. It is
discretion of respondents to publish waiting
list to any extent up to 25%.

18. It is well settled that a person in
waiting list has no absolute right for
consideration to get appointed as well as
that a waiting list cannot remain in
existence for unlimited period or a
particular selection process cannot remain
pending for unlimited period.

19. It would be more appropriate if
respondents have followed uniform criteria
for fixing percentage of waiting list, but
only on a ground that uniformity was not
followed. A decision itself would not
become arbitrary. Petitioners have failed to
show that any statutory provision was
violated. A direction was provided in
Rules, which was earlier upheld, therefore,
this Court cannot interfere with the
decision in Writ jurisdiction.

20. In view of above, this Court does
not find any ground to interfere with
impugned order. The judgment passed in
Gaurav Kumar and Ambrish Kumar
(supras) are also against the case of
petitioners. Number of vacancies are also
not on record. Recruitment process has
already
been
concluded.
Discretion
exercised by respondents does not suffer
with malice or is not an arbitrary decision.

21. Accordingly, all writ petition lack
merit, hence, these are dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 349
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 10655 of 2024

Gobinddas & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anand Kumar Pandey, Kamini Pandey
(Dubey)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issues for consideration