ORDER : 1. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) for the post of Sports Officer, advertised on 06.03.2019. The petitioner applied under the Other Backward Class (OBC) category, cleared the written examination, and was placed at Serial No. 1 in the OBC waiting list as per the final result published on 18.09.2020. One of the selected candidates from the OBC category, Amit Verma (Serial No. 17 in the selection list), passed away on 27.12.2021 before joining the post. Despite repeated representations and submission of relevant documents including the post-mortem report and subsequent death certificate (received by the Department on 05.12.2022), the case of petitioner for appointment in place of the deceased candidate was not acted upon in a timely manner. The Department of Higher Education had requested CGPSC to extend the validity of the waiting list beyond its expiry on 17.09.2022, citing the special circumstances and procedural delays in obtaining the death certificate and conducting police verification. However, CGPSC declined the request for extension via letter dated 17.02.2023. The petitioner contends that the delay was due to the inaction of the respondent authorities despite submitting representations within the validity period of the waiting list (including on 06.01.2022, 04.03.2022, and 18.05.2022). The petition seeks a direction for appointment from the waiting list, asserting that the opportunity was lost solely due to administrative delays and negligence of the respondents. Hence, this petition on the following grounds : “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner from waiting list for the post of Sports Officer with all consequences benefit. 10.2 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioners.” 2. Facts of the case, as canvased in the writ petition, are like that the respondent, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “CGPSC”), issued an advertisement dated 06.03.2019 for recruitment to the post of Sports Officer. The total number of posts was distributed among various categories, 17 posts were reserved for the Unreserved category, 15 posts for Scheduled Caste, 24 posts for Scheduled Tribe, and 5 posts for the Other Backward Classes (OBC). The total number of posts was distributed among various categories, 17 posts were reserved for the Unreserved category, 15 posts for Scheduled Caste, 24 posts for Scheduled Tribe, and 5 posts for the Other Backward Classes (OBC). The minimum educational qualification prescribed was a Master's Degree in Physical Education or Sports Science with at least 55% marks, along with qualifying NET/SET/Ph.D. Furthermore, Clause (2) of the important tips of the advertisement clarified that a “Good Academic Record” requires at least 50% marks at the undergraduate level. The petitioner, possessing all the requisite educational qualifications as per the advertisement, applied under the OBC category and appeared in the written examination. The petitioner successfully cleared the written exam and was found eligible during the subsequent document verification stage conducted by CGPSC. After conducting interviews, the CGPSC published the final selection list on 18.09.2020. In this list, the name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 4 in the overall waiting list and at Serial No. 1 in the OBC category waiting list. This confirmed that the petitioner was the first eligible candidate to be considered for appointment from the OBC wait list in case of any vacancy. Subsequently, the Department of Higher Education issued appointment orders for selected candidates to the post of Sports Officer via orders dated 23.10.2021, 08.11.2021, and 04.01.2022. However, the name of Amit Verma, who was selected under the OBC category and was listed at Serial No. 17 in the main selection list dated 18.09.2020, was not included in the appointment orders. The petitioner later came to know that Amit Verma, the selected OBC candidate, had unfortunately passed away on 27.12.2021 and had not joined the service. In light of this, the petitioner submitted multiple representations to the Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Higher Education on 06.01.2022, 04.03.2022, and 18.05.2022, requesting that his case be considered for appointment in place of the deceased candidate from the waiting list. During interactions with the authorities, the petitioner was orally informed that his request would be considered upon submission of the official death certificate of Amit Verma. Accordingly, the petitioner made repeated efforts to obtain the death certificate. From January 2022 onwards, the petitioner frequently visited the office of the Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education. He was informed that submission of the death certificate was necessary. Accordingly, the petitioner made repeated efforts to obtain the death certificate. From January 2022 onwards, the petitioner frequently visited the office of the Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education. He was informed that submission of the death certificate was necessary. The petitioner had already submitted the post- mortem report of Amit Verma, but the respondents failed to act upon it. On 15.09.2022, the petitioner informed the Under Secretary that the family of Amit Verma had refused to provide a copy of the death certificate, and even the Community Health Centre, Abhanpur denied the same. However, the Block Medical Officer (BMO) at the Health Centre stated that the certificate could be issued if a formal request was made by the concerned Government Department. The petitioner, therefore, requested the Under Secretary to send an official letter to the BMO. On 05.12.2022, the Department of Higher Education finally obtained the official death certificate of Amit Verma. Following this, on 19.12.2022, the Additional Director of Higher Education wrote to the Secretary of the Department, recommending consideration of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sports Officer in place of the deceased candidate. On 23.01.2023, the Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education, sent a letter to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, requesting extension of validity period of the wait list. It was noted that the original validity was up to 17.03.2022, and it had previously been extended up to 17.09.2022. Given the exceptional circumstances and delay in processing the death certificate and verification procedures, a further extension of six months was sought. Despite the request, on 17.02.2023, the Under Secretary of CGPSC responded by denying the extension of validity period of waiting list for an additional six months. This effectively foreclosed the opportunity of petitioner for appointment from the wait list. The selection list, including the wait list, was issued on 18.09.2020, making the wait list valid until 17.03.2022. CGPSC had already extended this once, up to 17.09.2022. However, despite the petitioner submitting representations within the valid period (06.01.2022, 04.03.2022, and 18.05.2022), no concrete action was taken by the authorities. Due to the respondents’ inaction, the wait list expired, rendering the candidacy of petitioner ineffective, through no fault of his own. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) issued an advertisement dated 06.03.2019 for recruitment to the post of Sports Officer. Due to the respondents’ inaction, the wait list expired, rendering the candidacy of petitioner ineffective, through no fault of his own. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) issued an advertisement dated 06.03.2019 for recruitment to the post of Sports Officer. The said advertisement earmarked 17 posts for the Unreserved category, 15 for Scheduled Castes, 24 for Scheduled Tribes, and 5 for Other Backward Classes (OBC). The prescribed minimum qualification was a Master’s Degree in Physical Education or Sports Science with at least 55% marks, along with NET/SET/Ph.D. qualifications. The petitioner, fully qualified as per the advertisement, applied under the OBC category, appeared in the selection process, qualified the written examination, and was shortlisted for the interview. It is submitted that after the interview, CGPSC published the final selection list dated 18.09.2020, in which the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 04 in the overall waiting list and at Serial No. 01 in the OBC category wait list. This clearly positioned the petitioner as the first eligible OBC wait list candidate for appointment in case of any vacancy arising out of non-joining or disqualification of any selected candidate. One candidate, Amit Verma, who was selected under the OBC category and placed at Serial No. 17 in the main list, was not issued an appointment order in the orders dated 23.10.2021, 08.11.2021, and 04.01.2022. Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that said Amit Verma had passed away on 27.12.2021 before joining service. The petitioner promptly submitted representations dated 06.01.2022, 04.03.2022, and 18.05.2022 to the Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, requesting that his candidature be considered against the resultant vacancy. The petitioner was informed orally that his case would be considered upon submission of the death certificate of Amit Verma. Despite multiple visits and submission of the post-mortem report, no action was taken. Moreover, the family of Amit Verma refused to share the death certificate and the Community Health Centre also declined. It was only after persistent efforts and a formal request by the petitioner that the Department of Higher Education obtained the official death certificate on 05.12.2022. Following this, the Additional Director, Department of Higher Education, sent a letter dated 19.12.2022 to the Secretary recommending consideration of the petitioner for appointment in place of the deceased candidate. It was only after persistent efforts and a formal request by the petitioner that the Department of Higher Education obtained the official death certificate on 05.12.2022. Following this, the Additional Director, Department of Higher Education, sent a letter dated 19.12.2022 to the Secretary recommending consideration of the petitioner for appointment in place of the deceased candidate. Further, on 23.01.2023, the Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education, sought an extension of the validity of the waiting list from CGPSC for a further six months, citing procedural delays and special circumstances. However, the CGPSC, vide letter dated 17.02.2023, declined to grant any further extension beyond the earlier extension that had already extended the waiting list validity until 17.09.2022. The selection list had originally been issued on 18.09.2020, making the one-and-a-half-year validity end on 17.03.2022, and subsequently extended to 17.09.2022. Despite repeated representations and factual disclosures made by the petitioner within the validity period, no steps were taken to appoint him, solely due to administrative inaction. The delay in processing the appointment request made by petitioner, despite his timely representations, is entirely attributable to the respondent authorities. The petitioner cannot be penalized for inaction or bureaucratic delay on part of the State, especially when he had complied with all necessary requirements during the validity period of the wait list. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that most shockingly, the respondents, after expiry of the wait list validity, issued an appointment order in favour of the deceased candidate Amit Verma on 21.06.2024, a fact that the petitioner obtained under the Right to Information Act. This action by the State shows that it is not the lack of intent to appoint Sports Officers, but the lack of due diligence that has deprived the petitioner of his rightful opportunity. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. vs. Ram Swarup Saroj , (2000) 3 SCC 699 , wherein it was held that expiry of the panel during the pendency of a claim will not defeat the right of a candidate who had made his claim during the currency of the panel. Further, this Court in W.A. No. 490/2015 , vide order dated 14.07.2016 , directed appointment of a wait-listed candidate when a selected candidate failed to join. Further, this Court in W.A. No. 490/2015 , vide order dated 14.07.2016 , directed appointment of a wait-listed candidate when a selected candidate failed to join. Similarly, in W.A. No. 92/2013 ( Ishwar Sharan Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh ), it was held that the misconception or delay on part of the authorities cannot be used to penalize a deserving candidate. In an identical matter involving appointment to the post of Revenue Inspector from a waiting list, this Court had granted interim relief by directing that one post be kept vacant until further orders ( WPS No. 698/2020, order dated 30.01.2020 ). In light of the foregoing, it is submitted that the petitioner had staked his claim well within the validity of the waiting list, fulfilled all formalities, and brought the vacancy caused by the demise of Amit Verma to the notice of the authorities. Yet, the respondents failed to act in time. The subsequent issuance of an appointment order in favour of a deceased candidate after the list expired is not only illegal but also a clear indication of administrative arbitrariness. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of Sports Officer against the said vacancy, and non-appointment on the sole ground of expiry of waiting list, caused due to the respondents' inaction, is legally untenable. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner for the post of Sports Officer under the OBC category in place of Amit Verma, along with all consequential benefits. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the entire writ petition filed by the petitioner is premised upon a single claim, that the petitioner should be granted appointment to the post of Sports Officer from the waiting list issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘CGPSC’). It is submitted that such a prayer is legally untenable, especially in light of the fact that the waiting list has expired and no further extension was granted by the CGPSC. The petitioner is seeking relief in contradiction to the established legal and procedural norms governing recruitment through CGPSC. It is submitted that such a prayer is legally untenable, especially in light of the fact that the waiting list has expired and no further extension was granted by the CGPSC. The petitioner is seeking relief in contradiction to the established legal and procedural norms governing recruitment through CGPSC. It is submitted that the Department of Higher Education had requisitioned the CGPSC to initiate the selection process for the posts of Librarian and Sports Officer. Acting promptly upon this requisition, CGPSC issued an advertisement dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure P/1), inviting applications. The petitioner, under the OBC category, participated in the written examination and interview. He was placed at Serial No. 04 in the waiting list published on 18.09.2020. The final merit list, both main and waiting, was supplied to the Department of Higher Education by CGPSC, and accordingly, the State issued appointment orders only in favour of candidates whose names were in the select list. All appointment orders were issued strictly in accordance with the selection list forwarded by CGPSC. The respondents had no discretion or authority to alter or modify the merit list or to appoint any candidate beyond the scope of the selection list and the validity of the wait-list as provided by CGPSC. Therefore, any claim made by the petitioner for appointment beyond the validity of list is beyond the permissible administrative or legal bounds. Petitioner had approached the respondents through several applications, asserting that one selected candidate, Shri Amit Verma, had passed away prior to joining, and that he (the petitioner), being the first candidate on the OBC waitlist, should be appointed in his place. Taking the request of petitioner in good faith, and without prejudice, the Department of Higher Education duly considered the matter and, vide letter dated 23.01.2023, sought an extension of the validity of the wait-list from CGPSC. However, CGPSC, after due consideration, declined the request to extend the wait-list beyond its already extended validity period, stating that such an extension would contravene the rules and policies governing the recruitment procedures of Commission. Therefore, once the validity of the waiting list expired on 17.09.2022, and no further extension was granted by the competent recruiting body, no further appointment could be made from that list. 6. It is further submitted that as per the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad & Ors. Therefore, once the validity of the waiting list expired on 17.09.2022, and no further extension was granted by the competent recruiting body, no further appointment could be made from that list. 6. It is further submitted that as per the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad & Ors. , (2004) 2 SCC 681 , even if a selected candidate does not join, in the absence of any statutory rule to the contrary, the employer is not under a legal obligation to fill the resultant vacancy from the waiting list. The Court further held that unless there is a binding provision or statutory rule requiring the use of the waiting list, no candidate has an enforceable right to appointment merely by virtue of his position on the waiting list. In this context, the claim of petitioner is wholly unsustainable. It is submitted that the original validity period of the wait-list was one year and six months from 18.09.2020, ending on 17.03.2022. This was further extended up to 17.09.2022. The request of petitioner for appointment was still under consideration when the list expired, and no formal decision or appointment could be made during that extended period. Therefore, due to the expiry of the wait-list, the claim of petitioner has become infructuous and unenforceable under law. It is important to note that the State authorities acted with due diligence and in good faith throughout. They entertained the representations made by petitioner, made efforts to verify the circumstances regarding death of Shri Amit Verma, and even initiated the process to seek extension of the wait-list from CGPSC. The denial of such extension by CGPSC, being the sole competent authority, left the State with no option but to refrain from proceeding with the appointment of petitioner. As regards the allegation made by petitioner that an appointment order was later issued in favour of Shri Amit Verma (deceased) on 21.06.2024, it is submitted that such administrative lapses, if any, are being looked into. However, this alleged act does not confer any right of appointment on the petitioner, particularly when the wait-list was no longer valid and the CGPSC had expressly refused further extension. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that the claim of petitioner for appointment from an expired waiting list is devoid of merit and contrary to the settled legal position. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that the claim of petitioner for appointment from an expired waiting list is devoid of merit and contrary to the settled legal position. The petitioner has no enforceable legal right to seek appointment from the expired wait-list, especially in the absence of a direction or approval from CGPSC. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed as it does not disclose any cause of action against the answering respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the submission made by learned State counsel and would submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner seeks a direction for appointment from an expired waiting list, which is impermissible in law and contrary to the established recruitment process. The prayer of petitioner, based solely on his inclusion in the waiting list and the death of one selected candidate, does not give rise to any enforceable legal right, particularly after the lapse of the validity period of the list. It is submitted that respondent No. 3, CGPSC, had published Advertisement No. 05/2019 dated 02.03.2019 for filling 61 posts of Sports Officer on the basis of a requisition made by the Department of Higher Education, Government of Chhattisgarh. The selection process was duly conducted, and the final selection list was issued vide communication No. 697/07/Selection/2020 dated 18.09.2020. In the said list, the petitioner was placed in the OBC waiting list as the only candidate in that category. However, mere inclusion in the waiting list does not confer any indefeasible right of appointment. The grievance of petitioner centers around the fact that one selected candidate, namely Shri Amit Verma, who was placed at Serial No. 17 in the selection list under the OBC category, passed away on 27.12.2021 before joining. The petitioner claims entitlement to the resulting vacancy on account of being next in line. However, it is submitted that such a claim is unsustainable as the petitioner was never in the select list, and any appointment beyond the validity of the waiting list requires express authority, which was not granted. The petitioner claims entitlement to the resulting vacancy on account of being next in line. However, it is submitted that such a claim is unsustainable as the petitioner was never in the select list, and any appointment beyond the validity of the waiting list requires express authority, which was not granted. It is further submitted that although the petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.06.2022 requesting consideration for appointment, the matter was referred by respondent No. 1 (Department of Higher Education) to the answering respondent through memo dated 23.01.2023, seeking extension of the validity period of the waiting list for an additional six months. However, the Commission had already extended the validity of the list once, up to 17.09.2022, beyond the original expiry of 17.03.2022. Any further extension was impermissible, and the answering respondent, therefore, conveyed its clear and repeated disagreement to such request vide communications dated 29.03.2022, 12.05.2022, and again on 23.01.2023. It is submitted that once the validity of the selection and waiting list expired, CGPSC was statutorily and procedurally barred from considering any further appointments from such a list. The entire recruitment process is governed by rules and regulations which limit the validity period and allow only one extension. The fault for not acting within that period, if any, lies not with the Commission, which had completed its duties upon forwarding the final list, but with the inaction on the part of the Department. Additionally, the petitioner has approached this Court without challenging the final communication dated 07.02.2023 whereby the Commission refused the extension of the waiting list. No explanation has been offered for this omission or the delay in challenging the expiry of the list, and hence the writ petition suffers from laches and deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. The Commission reiterates that its role in the recruitment process is limited to conducting examinations and furnishing a list of selected and wait-listed candidates in accordance with the requisition. Once the selection list is sent, and the validity period expires, CGPSC ceases to have any further role or discretion in the matter of appointments. In the present case, the claim of petitioner for appointment beyond the validity of the waiting list is not supported by any legal or administrative authority. Once the selection list is sent, and the validity period expires, CGPSC ceases to have any further role or discretion in the matter of appointments. In the present case, the claim of petitioner for appointment beyond the validity of the waiting list is not supported by any legal or administrative authority. In conclusion, it is submits that the petitioner has failed to make out any legally enforceable right, and the reliefs claimed are contrary to the settled law regarding appointments from waiting lists. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rakhi Ray and Others vs. High Court of Delhi and Others , (2010) 2 SCC 637 and in the matter of State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Ors. , (2010) 6 SCC 777 . 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition with utmost circumspection. 9. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to issue an appointment order in his favour to the post of Sports Officer, under the OBC category, from the waiting list prepared by the CGPSC pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/2019 dated 02.03.2019. It is not in dispute that the selection list and waiting list were initially valid for a period of 18 months from 18.09.2020, i.e., until 17.03.2022, and were subsequently extended by CGPSC up to 17.09.2022. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner made multiple representations before the competent authorities well within the extended validity period, on 06.01.2022, 04.03.2022, and 18.05.2022, specifically pointing out the vacancy that arose due to the death of Amit Verma and seeking appointment against that post as the next eligible candidate from the waiting list. The record further indicates that the claim of petitioner was acknowledged by the Additional Director, Higher Education Department, who, vide communication dated 19.12.2022, recommended to the Secretary of the Department that the petitioner be appointed in place of the deceased candidate. Subsequently, the Department sought an extension of the validity of the waiting list from CGPSC by communication dated 23.01.2023. However, CGPSC declined to grant any further extension beyond 17.09.2022, citing procedural restrictions. 10. Subsequently, the Department sought an extension of the validity of the waiting list from CGPSC by communication dated 23.01.2023. However, CGPSC declined to grant any further extension beyond 17.09.2022, citing procedural restrictions. 10. On facts, the following are clearly established that the petitioner was a duly qualified candidate and stood first in the OBC waiting list. Amit Verma, who was selected in the OBC category, passed away before joining. The petitioner made timely representations within the validity of the waiting list and the delay in issuance of appointment, if any, occurred solely on account of administrative inaction, particularly in obtaining the death certificate and completing verification processes. 11. A peculiar and significant development in this case is that an appointment order was later issued in the name of the deceased candidate Amit Verma on 21.06.2024, well after the expiry of the waiting list, a fact confirmed through documents procured under the Right to Information Act. This Court finds such action to be grossly irregular and in utter disregard of procedural propriety. 12. With regard to the pendency of the waiting list, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others v. Sat Pal, (2013) 11 SCC 737 , wherein the Court held as follows: "11. In view of the factual position noticed hereinabove, the reason indicated by the appellants in declining the claim of the respondent Sat Pal for appointment out of the waiting list is clearly unjustified. A waiting list would start to operate only after the posts for which the recruitment is conducted, have been completed. A waiting list would commence to operate when offers of appointment have been issued to those emerging on the top of the merit list. The existence of a waiting list allows room to the appointing authority to fill up vacancies which arise during the subsistence of the waiting list. A waiting list commences to operate after the vacancies for which the recruitment process has been conducted have been filled up. In the instant controversy the aforesaid situation for operating the waiting list had not arisen, because one of the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil), Grade II for which the recruitment process was conducted was actually never filled up. A waiting list commences to operate after the vacancies for which the recruitment process has been conducted have been filled up. In the instant controversy the aforesaid situation for operating the waiting list had not arisen, because one of the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil), Grade II for which the recruitment process was conducted was actually never filled up. For the reason that Trilok Nath had not assumed charge, one of the posts for which the process of recruitment was conducted, had remained vacant. That apart, even if it is assumed for arguments sake, that all the posts for which the process of selection was conducted were duly filled up, it cannot be disputed that Trilok Nath who had participated in the same selection process as the respondent herein, was offered appointment against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), Grade II on 22-4-2008. The aforesaid offer was made consequent upon his selection in the said process of recruitment. The validity of the waiting list, in the facts of this case, has to be determined with reference to 22-4-2008, because the vacancy was offered to Trilok Nath on 22-4-2008. It is the said vacancy, for which the respondent had approached the High Court. As against the aforesaid, it is the acknowledged position recorded by the appellants in the impugned order dated 23-8-2011 (extracted above), that the waiting list was valid till May 2008. If Trilok Nath was found eligible for appointment against the vacancy in question out of the same waiting list, the respondent herein would be equally eligible for appointment against the said vacancy. This would be the unquestionable legal position, insofar as the present controversy is concerned. 12. The date of filing of the representation by the parties concerned and/or the date on which the competent authority chooses to fill up the vacancy in question, is of no consequence whatsoever. The only relevant date is the date of arising of the vacancy. It would be a different legal proposition, if the appointing authority decides not to fill up an available vacancy, despite the availability of candidates on the waiting list. The offer made to Trilok Nath on 22-4-2008 by itself leads to the inference that the vacancy under reference arose within the period of one year i.e. during the period of validity of the waiting list postulated by the rules. The offer made to Trilok Nath on 22-4-2008 by itself leads to the inference that the vacancy under reference arose within the period of one year i.e. during the period of validity of the waiting list postulated by the rules. The offer of the vacancy to Trilok Nath negates the proposition posed above i.e. the desire of the employer not to fill up the vacancy. Herein, the appellants wished to fill up the vacancy under reference. Moreover, this is not a case where the respondent was seeking appointment against a vacancy over and above the posts for which the process of selection/recruitment was conducted. Based on the aforesaid inference, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellants ought to have appointed the respondent Sat Pal against the vacancy which was offered to Trilok Nath." 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others vs. Abhishek Shukla and Another , (2009) 5 SCC 368 has held as under : “17. We, therefore, do not find any error in the impugned judgments. We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily the life of such a panel is one year as has been observed by this Court in Girdhar Kumar Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 706 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 543 : (2009) 2 Scale 98 . However, the select list was approved by the appellant only in August 2003 and the respondents having made representations within one year therefrom in our opinion, the said requirement also stands satisfied in the instant case. Moreover, such a question had not ever been raised before the courts below. Had such a question been raised, the respondents could have dealt with the same. [See Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627 : (2009) 2 Scale 56 ].” 14. In Ram Swarup Saroj (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that expiry of a panel during the pendency of a claim does not defeat the right of a candidate who had staked his claim during the validity of the panel. Relevant paragraph is quoted below for ready reference : “10. In Ram Swarup Saroj (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that expiry of a panel during the pendency of a claim does not defeat the right of a candidate who had staked his claim during the validity of the panel. Relevant paragraph is quoted below for ready reference : “10. Similarly, the plea that a list of selected candidates for appointment to the State services remains valid for a period of one year only is primarily a question depending on facts and yet the plea was not raised before the High Court. Secondly, we find that the select list was finalised in the month of November 1996 and the writ petition was filed by the respondent in the month of October 1997, i.e., before the expiry of one year from the date of the list. Merely because a period of one year has elapsed during the pendency of litigation, we cannot decline to grant the relief to which the respondent has been found entitled by the High Court. We may place on record that during the course of hearing of the SLP before this Court, on 29-9-1999 we had directed the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. to bring on record on affidavit the status of present recruitment of the judicial officers and the present vacancy position in the subordinate judiciary. In the affidavit of the Joint Secretary, Department of Appointment, State Government, Uttar Pradesh sworn in on 4-11-1999 and filed before this Court it is stated that as on 14-10-1999 there were 231 vacancies existing in the cadre of Munsif Magistrates (now Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrates). That being the factual position we see no reason why the direction made by the High Court should be upset in an appeal preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh.” 15. Similar views were echoed by this Court in the matter of Uttam Kumar Bareth vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others , passed in W.A. No. 490/2015 vide order dated 14.07.2016 , directing appointment of a wait-listed candidate when a selected candidate failed to join. The relevant paragraphs are quoted hereunder : “9. It is urged that this writ petition is barred because the Petitioner has not come within one year of the issuance of the first letter of appointment. We cannot agree with this submission. The cause of action arises only after the period of one year expired. The relevant paragraphs are quoted hereunder : “9. It is urged that this writ petition is barred because the Petitioner has not come within one year of the issuance of the first letter of appointment. We cannot agree with this submission. The cause of action arises only after the period of one year expired. The State has given no other reason why it did not fill up the posts. Therefore we cannot agree with the submission that the writ petition is hit by the principles of delay and laches. 10. In view of the above discussion, we allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated 23.09.2015 and direct the State to offer letter of appointment to the Petitioner as Peon within two months from today. We however make it clear that he will only be entitled to seniority and wages from the date he joins the post.” 16. In the matter of Ishwar Sharan Gupta vs. State of Chhattigarh , passed in W.A. No. 92/2013 vide order dated 23.04.2013 where this Court has held that administrative delay or misconception cannot be a ground to deny a rightful claim. Relevant paragraph is quoted for ready reference : “39. In our opinion, in case the State Government was under a misconception that it cannot appoint a person unless the validity of the list was extended by the PSC and does not appoint him for this reason then its penalty cannot be imposed upon the Appellant: he cannot be denied appointment on this ground. 40. The appointment to the Appellant has been denied unreasonably for no fault of his. Firstly, the PSC unnecessarily delayed in sending the name and then the State Government wrongly assumed that list was not valid unless the PSC extended its validity. In our opinion it is a fit case in which, a direction should be issued to the State to appoint the Appellant if he is otherwise fit and there is no other objection.” 17. It is settled law that mere expiry of a select list does not deprive a candidate of his right to appointment if he had asserted his claim within the validity period and the delay in actual appointment was not attributable to him. In the present case, the petitioner took all necessary steps within the validity period. He informed the authorities about the vacancy caused due to the death of Amit Verma. In the present case, the petitioner took all necessary steps within the validity period. He informed the authorities about the vacancy caused due to the death of Amit Verma. He submitted representations and made personal efforts to obtain necessary documents. He even approached authorities when the family of deceased candidate declined to provide the death certificate, and it was ultimately the Department that procured it on 05.12.2022. The denial of appointment to the petitioner, despite the timely assertion of his claim, is a clear case of administrative arbitrariness. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own inaction or procedural delay to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate expectation of appointment. Denying petitioner the appointment now would amount to perpetuating administrative arbitrariness and penalising a candidate for no fault of his own. The conduct of the respondents in issuing an appointment to a deceased person, and failing to act on a valid claim during the operative period of the panel, warrants judicial correction. 18. The Court finds that the petitioner was vigilant, diligent, and consistent in asserting his claim. On the other hand, the failure to act timely lies solely with the respondent authorities. The subsequent issuance of an appointment order in favour of a deceased candidate after expiry of the waiting list further underscores administrative lapses, and only bolsters the case of petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that the claim of petitioner was raised within the validity period of the waiting list, the vacancy arose during the subsistence of the waiting list and the delay in appointment was entirely attributable to the inaction of the authorities and not the petitioner. The right of petitioner to be considered for appointment cannot be defeated due to the lapse of the waiting list where he had timely approached the authorities. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 20. The respondents are directed to issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner to the post of Sports Officer under the OBC category, in place of late Amit Verma, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.