Wait-listed candidates have no indefeasible right to appointment when the authority shows a justifiable administrative reason for refusal.

A candidate on a select or wait list has a right to be considered, but no vested or indefeasible right to appointment. The appointing authority may decline further appointments if it shows a justifiable administrative reason, and a court will not issue mandamus to compel appointment in such circumstances. Applied here, the main select list had already been exhausted by appointments, and the decision to defer further appointments pending amendment of the recruitment rules was treated as a sufficient administrative basis for refusing the wait-listed candidates. The refusal to appoint was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether candidates placed in the wait list for appointment as Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had an enforceable right to appointment, and whether the Central Government could decline further appointments after the main select list was exhausted and pending administrative amendment of the recruitment rules.

Analysis: Rule 4 of the Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules required the Selection Board to recommend candidates and the Central Government to make the final list of persons selected for appointment. The Court reiterated that a person on the select panel has no vested or indefeasible right to appointment, though he has a right to be considered. It further held that the Government cannot ignore a duly approved panel without justification, but the existence of a justifiable administrative reason may sustain a refusal to appoint from the wait list. On the facts, the main select list had been fully acted upon by appointment of the selected candidates. The Appointments Committee had decided that no further appointments would be made until amendment of the rules, and the Court found that this reason could not be treated as arbitrary or unsupported so as to compel appointment of the wait-listed candidates by mandamus.

Conclusion: The wait-listed candidates were not entitled to appointment as of right, and the Central Government's refusal to make further appointments was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The interference granted by the High Court and the Tribunal was set aside, and the claims for appointment of the wait-listed candidates failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate in a select or wait list has only a right to be considered, not an indefeasible right to appointment, and a court will not compel appointment where the appointing authority shows a justifiable administrative reason for declining further selection.

---