Supreme Court: In a civil appeal assailing the quashing of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order; and direction to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to the post in question, the Division Bench of Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that the appointment of another candidate against the unfilled post after release of the select list cannot be allowed merely on non-joining of a selected candidate, in absence of any enabling provision.
Background
Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) invited applications for the recruitment against 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 (1997 Rules).
One of the selected candidates under the General Merit Ex-Military Person category (GM/Ex-MP category) did not undergo the mandatory medical examination or police verification and did not report for duty. The respondent, an ex-serviceman, who was selected for another post in the same category and submitted a representation to Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Karnataka (DPAR). The respondent claimed that since the selected candidate just above him under the GM/Ex-MP category list did not join the service, the post for which he was selected remained unfilled and ought to be offered to him. The respondent based his claim on the fact that he was immediately next below the selected candidate and had indicated preference for the said post.
DPAR rejected the respondent’s request on basis that under the 1997 Rules there was no provision for preparation of an additional select list and that a post left unfilled on account of non-reporting by a selected candidate was required to be treated as a fresh vacancy to be filled in a subsequent recruitment.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed an application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) to challenge the decision of DPAR and sought a direction to select and appoint him to the purportedly unfilled post. KSAT dismissed the application while accepting the stand of the appellants and the KPSC, that the recruitment process had culminated in a final select list corresponding to the vacancies notified; the vacancy, if any, had to be filled only through a fresh recruitment process; and that there was no provision under the 1997 Rules for preparing an additional select list.
The respondent thereafter challenged KSAT’s order before the High Court by filing a writ petition. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed KSAT’s order and directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to the post in question.
Aggrieved, the appellants preferred the present appeal.
Issues
-
Whether, under the 1997 Rules, a vacancy arising in the course of the recruitment process on account of a selected candidate not undergoing the mandatory pre-appointment formalities or not reporting for duty could be claimed, as of right, by the respondent on the ground that he was immediately next below in the order of selection.
-
Whether such vacancy had to be treated in accordance with the governing rules as a vacancy to be filled only through a subsequent recruitment process.
Analysis and Decision
At the outset, the Court perused the relevant provisions of the 1997 Rules and stated that the 1997 Rules do not indicate that the list is to continue as an open-ended source of appointment even after the notified vacancies have been exhausted or the selection process has otherwise run its course.
“The list contemplated by Rule 11 is not an open-ended reservoir of candidates, but a service-wise list prepared equal to the number of available vacancies and meant to operate in respect of the vacancies notified in that recruitment itself.”
The Court observed that the 1997 Rules neither provide for any reserve list, waiting list, or additional list, nor do they contain any provision enabling the State to revert to the same list and travel further downward to fill a post left unfilled on account of non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining by a selected candidate. The Court observed that,
“A select list makes a candidate eligible for consideration in accordance with the governing rules. It does not create a vested right to claim appointment dehors the statutory framework.”
The Court stated that it is settled legal principle that inclusion of a candidate’s name in a select list does not by itself confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The Court relied on its judgment in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, to support its view and further relied on Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637 and State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777, to state that appointments must conform to the notified vacancies and the governing rules. The Court, hence, noted that the respondent’s claim cannot be sustained, as it did 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 non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining.
The Court stated that once the recruitment process 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. The Court noted that the record indicated that there were candidates above the respondent, and the respondent himself appeared to have sought to explain why such candidates ought not to be considered. The Court held that the circumstance itself was sufficient to show that the respondent’s claim was not one of an automatic or self-evident right, and a writ of mandamus could not have been issued on so uncertain a premise.
The Court observed that in the present case, the recruitment in question was not to a single post, but to multiple services and groups of posts. The process was, therefore, not one of a single linear progression where, upon one candidate falling out, the next candidate would necessarily step into the very same post. The Court held that any such ex post facto adjustment would risk unsettling a service-wise and preference-based allocation exercise which had already attained finality.
The Court noted that the High Court’s decision was contrary to the settled legal position and erroneously assumed that the principle that inclusion in the select list does not confer a right to appointment would not apply because the Government had already decided to appoint. The Court reiterated that all the right must originate from the rules of recruitment, and thus the respondent could not claim appointment merely because one selected candidate did not complete the pre-appointment process, in absence of any enabling provision. The Court observed that even if it were assumed that the post continued to remain vacant in fact, the further question still remained whether the 1997 Rules permitted the same select list to be operated for filling such post. The Court held that once the rules themselves define the contours of the list and do not provide for any reserve or additional list, the absence of a selected candidate cannot enlarge the statutory operation of the list.
The Court upheld KSAT’s decision and held that the High Court was not justified in holding that Rule 11(3) of the 1997 Rules had no application to the case at hand, as the Rule 11(3), read with Rule 11(1) and 4(3), lies at the heart of the controversy.
Hence, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned judgment.
[State of Karnataka v. Santhosh Kumar C., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 458, decided on 23-3-2026]
*Judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellants: N/A
For the respondent: N/A