Select list entries do not create an enforceable right to appointment after advertised vacancies are filled.

In a recruitment dispute after State reorganisation, the Supreme Court reiterated that inclusion in a select list does not create an enforceable right to appointment. The earlier observation allowing future consideration did not amount to a direction for automatic appointment, and the select list was not a continuing source of rights once the advertised vacancies had been filled and the original cadre structure had changed. Appointment could not be ordered beyond the number of advertised posts, and isolated earlier appointments could not be used to claim negative equality. The claim to appointment from the old select list was therefore rejected, and the direction to appoint was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the selected candidates could claim appointment against the advertised posts after reorganisation of the State and whether the earlier observation permitting future consideration entitled them to appointment from the existing select list.

Analysis: The select list was not a continuing source of enforceable appointment rights. The advertised vacancies had already been filled, the cadre structure relied upon by the claimants no longer survived in the same form, and the earlier judgment did not direct automatic appointments but left the matter to the State's consideration. The Court also reiterated that inclusion in a select list does not by itself confer a right to appointment and that no appointment can be ordered beyond the number of posts advertised. Reliance on isolated earlier appointments could not create a claim based on negative equality.

Conclusion: The claim to appointment from the old select list was rejected and the High Court's direction to appoint the respondents was set aside.

---