The Supreme Court has held that a candidate cannot claim appointment as a matter of right from the same select list merely because a selected candidate failed to complete pre-appointment formalities or did not join duty.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka and set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment, which had directed the authorities to consider the respondent for appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner in the Karnataka Administrative Service after the originally selected candidate did not report for duty.
The Court observed:
“Once that exercise had culminated in publication of the final list and appointments were made in accordance therewith, the respondent could not claim, in the absence of express statutory sanction, that he should be shifted to another post merely because the selected candidate for that post did not complete the pre-appointment formalities or did not join.”
Background Of The Recruitment
The dispute arose from a recruitment notification issued in 2011 for 362 posts of Karnataka Gazetted Probationers in Group A and Group B services under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997.
The respondent, an ex-serviceman, participated in the selection process and secured appointment as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in May 2022. However, a candidate selected for the post of Assistant Commissioner in the Karnataka Administrative Service did not undergo the mandatory medical examination or police verification and also failed to join duty.
Subsequently, the respondent sought appointment to that post, contending that he ranked next in merit and had indicated preference for the position.
Proceedings Before Tribunal And High Court
The State rejected the respondent’s request, stating that the 1997 Rules do not provide for preparation or operation of an additional or waiting list. It further maintained that any vacancy arising due to non-joining must be treated as a fresh vacancy and filled through a subsequent recruitment process.
The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal upheld the State’s position. However, the Karnataka High Court later quashed the Tribunal’s decision and directed the authorities to consider the respondent’s claim.
Aggrieved by this direction, the State of Karnataka approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court On Scope Of Select List
Allowing the appeal, the Bench, in a judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath, clarified that inclusion in a select list only confers eligibility for consideration in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and does not create a vested right to appointment beyond the statutory framework.
The Court noted:
“The respondent does not point to any provision in the 1997 Rules under which a candidate placed below a selected candidate acquires a right to be appointed to a post left unfilled on account of noncompletion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining.”
It further held:
“In the absence of such a provision, the mere fact that a selected candidate did not join cannot, by itself, create an enforceable right in favour of the respondent.”
No Migration To Higher Post Without Rule
The Court rejected the respondent’s claim that he should be appointed to the higher post merely because it remained unfilled. It emphasised that such a claim would only succeed if the governing rules expressly permitted it.
The Bench observed:
“…the respondent’s case rests on an assumption that whenever a selected candidate does not complete the pre-appointment requirements or does not report for duty, the post must pass on to the next candidate below. Such an assumption may have held good only if the governing rules expressly so provided. In the absence of any such provision in the 1997 Rules, the respondent could claim no more than what the statutory framework permitted. That framework did not confer upon him any enforceable right to appointment to the post in question.”
Tribunal’s View Upheld
The Court affirmed the Tribunal’s reasoning and held that the 1997 Rules do not contemplate preparation or operation of any additional or waiting list.
It observed:
“The Tribunal was right in holding that the 1997 Rules do not contemplate preparation or operation of any additional or waiting list, and that a post left unfilled on account of noncompletion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining by a selected candidate could not be claimed by the respondent as of right from the same selection process.”
Appeal Allowed
In light of these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment.
Cause Title: State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Santhosh Kumar C.
Appearance
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G.; Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR; Mr. Awanish Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Arijit Dey, Advocate; Ms. Bhumi Agrawal, Advocate; Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s): Ms. Shloka Narayanan, AOR; Ms. Shubhani D. Krishan, Advocate.
Also Read: Mizo Chiefs Land Rights: SC Rejects Plea.
