Fresh vacancy after completed selection does not give the next candidate a right to permanent appointment.

Once a selection process is completed and an appointment is made, it reaches finality; if the appointed incumbent later resigns, the resulting vacancy is a fresh vacancy that must be filled through fresh steps under the applicable rules. A candidate next in the earlier select list acquires no enforceable right to permanent appointment merely because of an interim temporary arrangement. The Court therefore treated the claim to permanent appointment as not maintainable and indicated that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a candidate who stood next in the select list had a right to be appointed permanently against a vacancy arising after the selected incumbent resigned.

Analysis: Once the selection process is completed and an appointment has been made, the process comes to an end. If the appointed candidate later leaves the post, the resulting vacancy is a fresh vacancy requiring fresh steps under the applicable rules. A temporary arrangement made in the interim does not confer any enforceable right to permanent appointment on the next-ranked candidate.

Conclusion: The claim for permanent appointment was not maintainable and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A vacancy arising after completion of a selection and appointment must be treated as a fresh vacancy, and a candidate from the earlier select list acquires no right to permanent appointment merely because of an interim temporary engagement.

---