Waiting List Does Not Revive When Selected Candidate's Engagement Is Cancelled Ab Initio, Rules J&K High Court

The Srinagar bench held that once a selected candidate joins a post, the select list stands exhausted, even if her engagement is later cancelled for holding a fraudulent certificate.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Srinagar bench, has dismissed a writ petition filed by Bisma Bashir, a candidate who appeared in the waiting list for the post of Messieurs (Female) at the Associated Hospital of Government Unani Medical College, Ganderbal. Justice Sanjay Dhar, sitting singly, held on 22 May 2026 that the select list stood exhausted the moment the originally selected candidate, Humaira Jan, joined the post. The subsequent cancellation of Humaira Jan’s engagement, on the ground that her Class XII certificate was issued by an unrecognised institution, did not revive the waiting list or entitle the petitioner to be offered engagement in her place.

The Post, the Selection, and the Cancellation

Vide Notification No. 01 of 2021 dated 21 October 2021, two posts of Messieurs (one male, one female) were advertised. Thirteen candidates applied. A written test was held on 28 August 2021 at Government Medical College, Srinagar. The selection list was published on 11 September 2021 vide communication No. GUMC/PS/1504-08.

Humaira Jan secured 14 marks out of 60 and was selected for the female post. Bisma Bashir secured 12 marks and figured at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list. An engagement order was issued in favour of Humaira Jan, and she joined the college.

Verification of Humaira Jan’s testimonials was then processed. Her ISM Pharmacist Diploma issued by the J&K Paramedical Council and her matriculation certificate were verified without issue. However, her Class XII pass certificate had been sent to the Secretary, Education Department, Government of the UT of Delhi, for confirmation. The verification report, received on 28 September 2022, stated that the Delhi State Open School (DSOS) is not recognised or affiliated with the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi.

On the basis of that report, the respondents cancelled Humaira Jan’s engagement order (No. 05-NG of 2022 dated 12 February 2022) ab initio on 25 October 2022. She was not paid any salary or financial benefit during the intervening period.

Petitioner’s Claim and the Respondents’ Defence

After Humaira Jan’s disengagement, Bisma Bashir made a representation to the respondents seeking operation of the waiting list. When no action was taken, she filed WP(C) No. 2838/2022.

Before the court, the petitioner argued that because the engagement of Humaira Jan was cancelled ab initio, it must be treated as though the post had fallen vacant on the date the engagement order was issued, i.e., 12 February 2022. On that date, the waiting list was still alive, and the respondents were therefore obliged to operate it. The petitioner also contended that the respondents could not take advantage of their own negligence and delay in verifying Humaira Jan’s testimonials to argue that the waiting list had since expired.

The respondents countered that the select list was issued on 11 September 2021 and the waiting list had a validity of one year. By the time Humaira Jan’s engagement was cancelled on 25 October 2022, the waiting list had already expired, and it could not be operated thereafter.

The Supreme Court Precedent Applied

Justice Dhar turned to the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India and Ors. v. G. Ramesh (2021) 14 SCC 404, which arose from a comparable fact pattern. In that case, a candidate selected as Postman after a departmental examination was later dismissed following a departmental enquiry for having obtained selection by fraudulent means. The second-ranked candidate approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed his appointment. The High Court affirmed that direction. The Supreme Court reversed both orders.

The Supreme Court in G. Ramesh held that once a candidate had been selected upon conclusion of the selection process and was appointed to the post, the select list stood exhausted. The subsequent dismissal of the appointed candidate would not revive the select list or result in the appointment of the next candidate. The court drew on its earlier ruling in Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd., which had held that when the selection process is complete and an appointment has been made, any vacancy arising after the appointee joins must be treated as a fresh vacancy requiring fresh steps under the applicable rules.

Justice Dhar extracted the operative paragraphs of G. Ramesh and applied the ratio directly: “once a candidate has been selected upon conclusion of the selection process and is appointed to the post, the select list stands exhausted.” The subsequent dismissal or disengagement of the appointed candidate, for whatever reason, would not revive either the select list or the waiting list.

Why the Ab Initio Argument Did Not Assist the Petitioner

The petitioner’s central argument was that an ab initio cancellation is legally equivalent to the post never having been filled, so the waiting list should be read as still operative from the date of the original engagement order. Justice Dhar rejected this construction.

The court held that the fact that Humaira Jan may have secured her appointment on the basis of a fraudulent certificate, leading to cancellation of her engagement, made no difference to the validity of the select list or the waiting list. Once she had joined after her selection, the select list stood exhausted. The legal character of the cancellation, whether ab initio or prospective, did not alter that position.

The court also addressed the delay-and-negligence argument. Even accepting that the respondents were slow in verifying Humaira Jan’s Class XII certificate, that delay could not extend the life of a waiting list that had already run its course under the terms of the engagement itself.

The Academic Arrangement Basis as an Independent Ground

Justice Dhar identified a second, independent reason why the petitioner’s claim could not succeed. The post of Messieurs (Female) had been advertised and filled on an academic arrangement basis, not on a regular basis. The engagement order issued in favour of Humaira Jan expressly stated that her engagement was valid only for one year or until the post was filled on a regular basis, whichever was earlier.

Given that the select list was issued on 11 September 2021 and the waiting list carried a validity of one year, the waiting list had in any event expired well before Humaira Jan’s engagement was cancelled on 25 October 2022. On this ground too, the select list and waiting list could not have been carried forward, and the petitioner had no case.

Order

Justice Sanjay Dhar found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it. Any interim direction that had been operating in the matter was vacated. The judgment, pronounced on 22 May 2026, was marked reportable.