News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 1
Bilaspur, 02.01.2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a writ petition filed by a waitlisted candidate seeking appointment as Assistant Professor (Computer Science), holding that no appointment can be made from a waiting list after its statutory validity period has expired, even if a reserved vacancy remains unfilled.
The decision was delivered on January 2, 2026, by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas in WPS No. 2442 of 2024, rejecting the challenge raised by Vijay Tonder, a Scheduled Caste candidate who had been placed at serial number one in the waiting list prepared by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission.
The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated in January 2019 for backlog posts of Assistant Professor in Computer Science. While the final select and waiting list were published on June 30, 2021, one selected candidate, Ram Ratan Khunte, later declined to join the Computer Science post after opting for appointment in the Computer Application stream. Tonder argued that since the SC-reserved post remained vacant, he should be appointed from the waiting list.
However, the Court noted that Khunte’s refusal came on July 7, 2023, well after the expiry of the waiting list. Under the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch, Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2019, a waiting list remains valid for one and a half years from the date of issuance. In this case, the list had expired on December 29, 2022.
Justice Vyas emphasized that a waiting list is not a perpetual source of recruitment. It can be operated only during its valid period and only if a selected candidate fails to join, resigns, or becomes unavailable within that time. Since the vacancy arose after the expiry of the list, the petitioner had no enforceable right to appointment.
The Court also rejected the plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner, who cited appointments made in other subjects during 2023 and 2024. The judgment clarified that parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis of appointment orders unless it is demonstrated that those appointments were made under identical legal and factual circumstances. The burden of proving such parity, the Court held, rests on the person making the claim.
Relying on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the High Court reaffirmed that inclusion in a waiting list does not confer a vested right to appointment. Once the prescribed validity period lapses, the list loses its legal force, and no appointment can be made from it.
Case Reference : WPS No. 2442 of 2024, Vijay Tonder vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Counsels : For Petitioner : Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent/P.S.C. : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate.