1. Where the State Government fails to proceed in accordance with established rules and exhibits a lack of diligence in recruitment, its decision to stop the process and leave a large number of posts (e.g., 2,840 teacher posts) unfilled is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State cannot cite administrative convenience or fear of future postings disputes as a justification for depriving waiting-list candidates of their right to appointment based on merit.
2. The embargo operating the waiting list beyond six months does not bar a writ petition if the posts are still officially vacant and the State has not taken a conscious, documented decision to abolish them. The mere passage of time without action by the appointing authority does not result in the forfeiture of the right of candidates on the waiting list.
3. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has been recognized in judicial precedents. In the absence of a valid statutory bar or a conscious decision by the State to reduce the vacancy, the State cannot shy away from its statutory obligation to fill advertised posts by invoking unfulfilled reserve lists.
4. The State cannot claim that the exercise of reshuffling or operating the reserve list is complete permanently without evidence of a conscious decision to reduce the 'finally intimated vacancy.' If the posts have been merged into future budget estimates to be filled later rather than formally closed, the recruitment process remains alive and the State must proceed to fill them.
5. Selection processes must be conducted reasonably and diligently. Shifting responsibilities to other departments without coordination or acting on the pretext that the responsibility lies elsewhere when the statutory duty of the appointing authority is clear renders such action unsustainable in law.
