Delhi Judicial Services Rules | Waitlisted Candidate Can't Join Service Even If Appointed Candidate Resigns After Filling Of Vacancies: High Court

A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla observed,

“Rule 18(vi) mandates that the select list would be utilized only for the purpose of appointment in case a vacancy is created by virtue of clause (v) of rule 18. Unfortunately, rule 18 (v) only talks of failure to join service by a candidate and does not envisages any eventuality, in case the seats may fall vacant after joining due to any reasons of resignation, death, candidature declared illegal etc.”

The Court was dealing with a waitlist candidate's plea who sought appointment on the seat which fell vacant after resignation of an appointee of the Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2022.

A total of 88 candidates from the general category were offered appointment in the said recruitment process and the petitioner was placed at serial no.5 in the waitlist of the unreserved category.

4 candidates did not join, thereby leaving 4 vacant seats. Thus, 4 candidates from the waiting list were offered appointments in respect of those vacant posts. After the initial formalities concluded, the candidates joined on 20.03.2024.

Subsequently, one out of those 4 candidates tendered her resignation.

Petitioner argued that being next in the waitlist, she is entitled to be appointed against the vacancy.

She submitted that under the 1970 Rules, the select list prepared for all the categories of candidates continues to be valid till the next select list is prepared. It was argued that the entire purpose of publishing a waiting list is that if in case any vacancy arises, either by non-joining of any candidate or by resignation of any candidate during the training period, it shall be filled up by the next candidate in the order of merit in the wait list.

The counsel appearing for the High Court however opposed the petition, stating that as per the applicable rules the petitioner has no right to be appointed against the vacancy of the seat, which has arisen due to resignation of a selected candidate who had duly joined the service.

It was submitted that the 1970 Rules are clear that once the selected candidates join against all the available vacancies, the process of recruitment will deem to be concluded and any ensuing vacancy arising due to subsequent resignation of a candidate who had duly joined the service cannot be filled from the waiting list but through a fresh recruitment process.

Agreeing with this stance, the High Court observed,

“Once a candidate joins against a vacancy, no scope remains to work Rule 18(v) for that vacancy…since all the 88 seats candidates recommended under the unreserved category came to join, there was no vacant seat available to accommodate the petitioner in terms of rule 18(vi) of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules.”

The Court however agreed that when rule 18(vii) mandates for the Select List prepared for all categories of officials to be valid till the next Select List is published, then it's a “dichotomy” that the rule merely recognises vacancy arising only due to failure to join and not an eventuality of the vacancy arising if a candidate resigns after joining.

This anomaly however, the Court said, can only be cured by the rule makers or the competent committee of the court on its administrative side.

As such, it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Mr. J Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhinav Garg, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Mr. Luv Kumar and Mr. Manwendra Gautam, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Siddharth Thakur and Mr. Apurv Gaur, Advs. for Respondents

Case title: Aadya Antya v. High Court Of Delhi Through Registrar General

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 973

Case no.: W.P.(C) 5830/2024

Click here to read judgment