Expired select list cannot support mandamus for appointment where no subsisting legal right exists under recruitment rules.

A mandamus to appoint candidates from a select list cannot be sustained once the list has expired under the governing recruitment rules, because judicial relief requires a subsisting legal right and a corresponding legal duty. On that basis, the expired select list did not confer any enforceable entitlement to appointment, and alleged illegality in appointments made in other cases could not create a right in favour of the claimants. The text also notes that delay in filing the appeal may be condoned for sufficient cause, and that the availability of an intra-court remedy does not, by itself, bar recourse under Article 136 where circumstances justify its exercise.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the availability of a statutory intra-court remedy should prevent invocation of Article 136 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether a mandamus could be issued to compel appointment from a select list that had expired under the recruitment rules.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the availability of a statutory intra-court remedy should prevent invocation of Article 136 of the Constitution of India?

Analysis: The Court accepted that delay must ordinarily be explained, but held that the circumstances of governmental processing and the merit of the matter constituted sufficient cause for condonation. It also held that the existence of an appeal to a Division Bench was only a self-imposed restraint and did not bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136, particularly where the matter had remained pending and the impugned judgment disclosed patent error.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the Court declined to reject the appeals on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether a mandamus could be issued to compel appointment from a select list that had expired under the recruitment rules?

Analysis: The Court construed Rule 26 of the Subordinate Officers Clerical staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 and held that the select list remained operative only for one year from the date of selection. A writ of mandamus can issue only where the claimant has a subsisting legal right and there is a corresponding legal duty; no mandamus can compel an act contrary to law. Since the select list had expired before the writ petitions were filed, no enforceable right survived. The Court further held that illegal appointments made in some other cases could not create a legally enforceable right in favour of the respondents.

Conclusion: The mandamus issued by the High Court was unsustainable and the respondents were not entitled to appointment from the expired select list.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's directions were set aside, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A mandamus cannot be issued to compel appointment from a select list whose life has expired under the governing rules, because a writ claimant must possess a subsisting legal right on the date of the petition, and illegality in other appointments does not confer an enforceable right.

---