PRAYAGRAJ, Jan. 4 -- The Allahabad high court has held that a candidate placed on a waiting list has no absolute right to appointment and that a waiting list cannot be in existence for an indefinite period. Dismissing a writ petition filed by Nitish Maurya and four others, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed, "It is well settled that a person in waiting list has no absolute right for consideration to get appointed as well as that a waiting list cannot remain in existence for unlimited period or a particular selection process cannot remain pending for unlimited period." The petitioners had participated in the selection process for assistant teacher (LT grade) post in privately managed, recognised and aided higher secondary schools in the state through advertisement issued by Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj. Initially, the petitioners did not appear either on the merit list or on the waiting list. They later approached the high court, which directed the board to fill all vacancies across the state in accordance with the procedure laid down by the court. The state government filed a special appeal against the order of the single judge, following which it was directed that all vacancies be filled by selected candidates who had not joined any institution and also by candidates from the waiting list, after giving them options for placement in institutions or colleges. A fresh panel of candidates was to be prepared accordingly. The secretary, UP Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj, issued a communication to the director of secondary education regarding counselling on vacant posts under waiting list, after which the process was completed, including counselling of selected candidates. An order was later passed stating that there was no requirement to modify the existing waiting list. This order was challenged before the high court. The court held that the board was required to publish a waiting list only up to a maximum of 25% of the vacancies, and that it was not obligated to publish a waiting list covering the entire 25%. The waiting list could be to any extent up to 25% -- 5%, 10% or any other proportion, the court observed....