Supreme Court: In a case relating to the appointment to the post of Assistant teacher, from the Additional List (Wait List) of the candidates, the bench of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJI and PS Narasimha, JJ has held that the operation of the Additional List, which is to be published in the official Gazette will depend upon the time specified in the Rule and not as per the knowledge of individual candidates. The Court, further, held that enlistment of name in the Additional List neither creates a right nor a co-relative obligation for appointment.
Background of the case
In the case at hand, the respondent applied for the position of Assistant Teacher in a government primary school but was not selected. Later, an additional list was published with the respondent’s name, but it was subject to government directions. When a selected candidate declined the position, the respondent requested consideration for the role, but it was rejected as it was beyond the six-month period. The decision was challenged before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and later before the High Court of Karnataka.
The Karnataka High Court held that the State failed in its obligation to inform the respondent about the existence of the vacancy that has arisen, and also that, there were “latches in filling up the vacancy”. For this reason, the High Court was of the opinion that the respondent was not at fault when she made her application after expiry of six months. Hence, the appellants were directed to give effect to the Additional List within three months from the date of the order.
Supreme Court's Analysis and Ruling
The Court took note of the following key facts:
-
The selection process which commenced on 23.03.2015, culminated in the issuance of a selection list on 20.01.2016.
-
The Additional List has been notified on 29.02.2016.
-
Proceedings of Govt. of Karnataka dated 11.04.2003 provides that an Additional List shall remain valid up to six months from the date of its publication or the date when all the posts are filled up, whichever is earlier.
-
Since the Additional List was published on 29.02.2016, it would be valid up to 28.08.2016. As the Respondent made a representation only on 08.09.2016, which was beyond the six-month period, the request of the Respondent was rejected.
The Court observed that the Proceedings dated 11.04.2003 is only an executive instruction and cannot override the application of Rules that govern services. The Rules that govern the services are the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 as amended in 2001. On a close reading of the relevant rule applicable to the services, the Court observed that there is no obligation on the State to make appointments.
“Mere publication of the Additional List does not create any right to be appointed. There is no such mandate in the Rule. Entry 66 of the Rules merely provides that the Selection authority shall prepare and publish an Additional List of candidates not exceeding ten percent of the vacancies and the said list shall cease to operate from the date of publication of notification for subsequent recruitments.”
The Court explained that the duty to fill up vacancies from the Additional List (waiting list) can arise only on the basis of a mandatory rule. In the absence of such a mandate, the decision to fill all the vacancies from the Additional List, is left to the wisdom of the State. However, State cannot act arbitrarily and its action will be subject to judicial review.
Hence, on the facts of the case, the Court held that the High Court committed an error in assuming the existence of a right to be appointed on the basis of Entry 66 in the Schedule to the 1967 Rules.
On the conclusion of the High Court that the Respondent was unaware of the resignation of the appointed candidate, the Court held that the operation of the Additional List, which is to be published in the official Gazette will depend upon the time specified in the Rule and not as per the knowledge of individual candidates.
Hence, the High Court committed an error in directing the State to give effect to the Additional List and appoint the respondent within three months from the date of the order.
[State of Karnataka v. Bharathi S., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 665, order dated 19-05-2023]
