Supreme Court clarifies rights of candidates in waitlists: State of Karnataka vs. Smt. Bharathi S. (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 19, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 573

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Does being on a waitlist for a government job guarantee you the position? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying that merely being on an additional list or waitlist does not create an automatic right to be appointed. This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the rights of candidates on waitlists for government jobs. The bench comprised of Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

The case involves Smt. Bharathi S., who applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary School in Chikkaballapur District, Karnataka. After the selection process, a final list of five candidates was published on January 20, 2016. Smt. Bharathi S. was not on this list. However, an Additional List (waitlist) was published on February 29, 2016, which included only her name. The Additional List stated that inclusion in the list did not guarantee appointment and was subject to government directions.

Later, on July 21, 2016, one of the selected candidates declined the position. Smt. Bharathi S. then requested on September 8, 2016, that she be considered for the position as she was the only candidate on the Additional List. The State rejected her request on February 17, 2017, citing a government order from April 11, 2003, which stated that an Additional List remains valid for six months from its publication date or until all posts are filled, whichever is earlier. Since the Additional List was published on February 29, 2016, it expired on August 28, 2016, before Smt. Bharathi S. made her request.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Smt. Bharathi S. challenged the State’s decision before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed her application, relying on the government order dated April 11, 2003. She then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, stating that the State failed to inform the respondent about the vacancy and that there were delays in filling it. The High Court directed the State to appoint Smt. Bharathi S. within three months. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, specifically Entry 66 of the Schedule, which deals with the ‘Primary School Assistant Cadre’. This rule states:

“The Selection authority shall prepare an additional list of candidates not included in the main list not exceeding ten per cent of the vacancies available. The list so prepared shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall cease to be operative from the date of publication of Notification for the subsequent recruitment of Primary School Teachers under these rules or any other rules specifically made for the recruitment of primary school teachers. However, the recruitment shall be limited to the extent of notified vacancies only.”

Additionally, the State relied on a government order dated April 11, 2003, which clarifies the validity of the Additional List:

“For this, answer is up to 6 months of the announcement of additional list or by filling all the posts which has been already announced, whichever occurs first is to be taken into consideration.”

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Karnataka:

• The State argued that the Additional List is valid for only six months from the date of its publication, as per the government order dated April 11, 2003.
• Since the Additional List was published on February 29, 2016, it expired on August 28, 2016. The respondent’s request made on September 8, 2016, was therefore beyond the validity period.
• The State also relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Subha B. Nair & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [ (2008) 7 SCC 210 ] and Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47] to contend that mere inclusion in a waitlist does not create a right to appointment.

Arguments by Smt. Bharathi S.:

• The respondent argued that the government order dated April 11, 2003, is merely an executive instruction and cannot override the statutory rules.
• She contended that as per Entry 66 of the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, the Additional List remains valid until a subsequent notification for recruitment of primary school teachers is issued.
• She argued that the State failed to inform her about the vacancy that arose when one of the selected candidates declined the position.

The core of the dispute was whether the executive order or the statutory rules would prevail in determining the validity of the additional list and whether the candidate had a right to appointment based on her position in the additional list.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the State to give effect to the Additional List and appoint the respondent within three months.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Subha B. Nair & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [(2008) 7 SCC 210] – The Supreme Court held that the decision to fill existing vacancies is within the employer’s domain, and a court should not interfere unless there is discrimination or arbitrariness.
• K. Thulaseedharan v. Kerala State Public Service Commission [(2007) 6 SCC 190] – The Supreme Court reiterated that if an employer decides not to fill existing vacancies, a person on the select list cannot compel the employer to fill them.
• Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47] – The Supreme Court held that merely being on a select list does not create an indefeasible right to be appointed. The State is not legally bound to fill all vacancies unless the recruitment rules mandate it.

Legal Provisions:

• Entry 66 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 – This rule allows for the preparation of an additional list of candidates, but does not mandate appointments from it.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the High Court erred in assuming that Entry 66 of the Schedule to the 1967 Rules created a right to be appointed. The Court clarified that the rule does not mandate the State to make appointments from the Additional List.

The Court reiterated that the operation of the Additional List depends on the time specified in the rules and not on the knowledge of individual candidates. The Court also emphasized that the State’s decision not to fill the vacancy was not arbitrary.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established legal principle that mere inclusion in a waitlist does not create a right to appointment. The Court emphasized that the State has the discretion to fill vacancies and is not obligated to do so unless mandated by specific rules. The Court also focused on the interpretation of Entry 66 of the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, concluding that it does not create a mandatory obligation for appointments from the Additional List. The Court’s reasoning was also guided by precedents that have consistently upheld the employer’s discretion in filling vacancies.

The Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%) than by the specific facts of the case (30%).

The Court’s reasoning was based on a step-by-step logical analysis, starting with the issue, moving to the interpretation of the relevant rule, and then relying on established legal precedents to reach its conclusion.

The Court considered the argument that the government order was an executive instruction that could not override the statutory rules. However, it clarified that the statutory rule itself did not create a right to appointment, thus making the executive instruction relevant in determining the validity period of the Additional List. The Court rejected the argument that the State’s failure to inform the respondent about the vacancy would alter the validity period of the Additional List.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• Entry 66 of the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 does not create a right to be appointed.
• The Additional List’s validity is limited to six months as per the government order dated April 11, 2003.
• The State is not obligated to fill vacancies from the Additional List unless there is a mandatory rule requiring it.
• The State’s decision not to fill the vacancy was not arbitrary.

The Court quoted from the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47]:

“It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post.”

The Court also quoted from the case of Subha B. Nair & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [(2008) 7 SCC 210]:

“A decision on the part of an employer whether to fill up the existing vacancies or not is within its domain. On this limited ground in the absence of discrimination or arbitrariness, a writ court ordinarily would not interfere in such matters.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• Inclusion in a waitlist or Additional List does not guarantee a right to appointment in government jobs.
• The State has the discretion to fill vacancies and is not obligated to do so unless mandated by specific rules.
• The validity of a waitlist is governed by the rules and orders in place and not by the knowledge of individual candidates.
• Candidates on waitlists should not assume that a vacancy will automatically be filled from the waitlist.

This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the rights of candidates on waitlists, emphasizing that the State’s discretion in filling vacancies is paramount unless a mandatory rule dictates otherwise. This decision will likely impact future cases involving waitlists for government jobs, reinforcing the principle that being on a waitlist does not create an indefeasible right to appointment.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order directing the State to appoint the respondent within three months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that mere inclusion in a waitlist (Additional List) does not create a right to appointment. The State has the discretion to fill vacancies, and this discretion is not limited by the existence of a waitlist unless there is a mandatory rule requiring it. This judgment reinforces the established position of law that being on a select list or waitlist does not create an indefeasible right to be appointed, and it clarifies the application of this principle in the context of government service. This decision does not change any previous positions of law but rather reaffirms them.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Karnataka vs. Smt. Bharathi S. clarifies that being on a waitlist for a government job does not guarantee appointment. The Court emphasized that the State has the discretion to fill vacancies and is not obligated to do so unless mandated by specific rules. This decision reinforces the principle that inclusion in a waitlist does not create a right to appointment and that the validity of such lists is governed by the rules and orders in place. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, upholding the State’s decision not to appoint the respondent.

Category

Parent category: Service Law

Child categories: Recruitment Rules, Waitlist, Appointment, Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967.

Parent category: Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967

Child categories: Entry 66 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967

FAQ

Q: Does being on a waitlist for a government job guarantee me the position?

A: No, being on a waitlist does not guarantee you the position. The Supreme Court has clarified that the State has the discretion to fill vacancies and is not obligated to do so just because you are on a waitlist.

Q: What does the Supreme Court say about the validity of a waitlist?

A: The Supreme Court has stated that the validity of a waitlist is governed by the rules and orders in place and not by the knowledge of individual candidates. In this case, the waitlist was valid for six months from the date of its publication.

Q: Can I challenge the State’s decision if they don’t appoint me from the waitlist?

A: You can challenge the State’s decision if it is arbitrary or discriminatory. However, the State has the discretion to fill vacancies and is not obligated to do so unless there is a mandatory rule requiring it.

Q: What should I do if my name is on a waitlist for a government job?

A: You should not assume that a vacancy will automatically be filled from the waitlist. You should stay informed about the rules and orders in place and continue to look for other opportunities.