Bombay High Court
CHANDRAKANT SURESH NARGULLAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The waiting list was valid only for one year, and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to appointment.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandrakant Suresh Nargulla, was listed as number one on a waiting list for the post of Civil Engineering Assistant. A vacancy arose in 2017, and the petitioner claimed he should be appointed based on his position on the list. The court examined the terms of the waiting list and found that it was valid for only one year. Since the vacancy and the petition were presented after the one‑year period had expired, the waiting list had lapsed. Consequently, the petition lacked any substantive ground for relief. The High Court dismissed the writ petition without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a candidate positioned at the top of a waiting list is entitled to appointment after the waiting list has expired.
- Whether the waiting list for a civil service vacancy remains valid beyond its stipulated one‑year period.
Subjects
- waiting list
- appointment
- civil engineering assistant
- vacancy
- lapse of waiting list
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:5445-DB
(1) wp4662.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
22 WRIT PETITION NO. 4662 OF 2018
CHANDRAKANT SURESH NARGULLA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr. S.S. Birajdar h/f. Mr. S.K. Chavan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.J. Salgare, AGP for the respondent-State.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
DATE : 06.02.2026
PC :-
01. The petitioner's name was at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list
prepared for the post of Civil Engineering Assistant. It is claimed that
the vacancy arose in 2017 and the petitioner therefore made
representation to appoint him on the vacant post being a candidate at Sr.
No.1 in the waiting list. It is seen that the waiting list was valid only for
one year and after one year the waiting list lapsed. As such, there is no
substance in this petition.
02. This Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
snk/2026/Feb26/wp4662.18
Checking your session…