Date of the Judgment: 19 May 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 472
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J
Can a candidate on a waitlist demand appointment if a vacancy arises after the validity of the waitlist expires? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case concerning the appointment of an Assistant Teacher in Karnataka. The Court clarified that inclusion in an additional list (waitlist) does not automatically guarantee a right to appointment. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.
Case Background
The case revolves around the recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Government Primary Schools in Karnataka. The respondent, Smt. Bharathi S., applied for a position in Chikkaballapur District. After the selection process, a final list of five candidates was released on 20 January 2016. Smt. Bharathi’s name was not on this list. However, an additional list (waitlist) was published on 29 February 2016, which included only her. The additional list explicitly stated that inclusion did not guarantee appointment and was subject to government directions.
On 21 July 2016, a selected candidate declined the post. Smt. Bharathi then requested consideration for the position on 8 September 2016, citing her place on the additional list. The State rejected her request on 17 February 2017, based on a government order dated 11 April 2003, which limited the validity of additional lists to six months from publication or until all posts were filled, whichever was earlier. As the additional list was published on 29 February 2016, it expired on 28 August 2016, before Smt. Bharathi’s request.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 23 March 2015 | Recruitment process commenced. |
| 20 January 2016 | Final select list of five candidates issued. |
| 29 February 2016 | Additional list (waitlist) published, including the respondent. |
| 21 July 2016 | A selected candidate declined the post. |
| 8 September 2016 | Respondent requested consideration for appointment. |
| 17 February 2017 | State rejected the respondent’s request. |
| 31 January 2020 | High Court of Karnataka set aside the order of the Tribunal. |
| 19 May 2023 | Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State. |
Course of Proceedings
The State’s rejection of Smt. Bharathi’s request was challenged before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which upheld the State’s decision based on the 11 April 2003 order. Smt. Bharathi then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the State had failed to inform the respondent about the vacancy and that there were “latches in filling up the vacancy.” The High Court directed the State to give effect to the additional list within three months. The State of Karnataka then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily concerns 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’. Entry 66 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.”
The State also relied on a clarification issued on 11 April 2003, which stated that an additional list is valid for six months from its announcement or until all announced posts are filled, whichever occurs first. This clarification is an executive instruction, not a rule.
Arguments
Arguments by the State of Karnataka:
- The State argued that the additional list’s validity is governed by the clarification dated 11 April 2003, which limits its life to six months from the date of publication or until all posts are filled.
- The State contended that the respondent’s application was made after the expiry of the six-month period, making her ineligible for appointment.
- The State relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Subha B. Nair & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India to argue that inclusion in a waitlist does not create a right to appointment.
Arguments by Smt. Bharathi S.:
- The respondent argued that the 11 April 2003 clarification is merely an executive instruction and cannot override the statutory rules.
- The respondent contended that Entry 66 of the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, states that the additional list remains valid until a subsequent notification for recruitment of primary school teachers is issued.
- The respondent argued that the State should have informed her about the vacancy and that the delay in filling the vacancy was not her fault.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| State of Karnataka: Additional list validity |
|
| State of Karnataka: No right to appointment |
|
| Smt. Bharathi S.: Rule vs. Instruction |
|
| Smt. Bharathi S.: Additional list validity |
|
| Smt. Bharathi S.: State’s Obligation |
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The respondent’s argument that the executive instruction cannot override the statutory rules is a standard legal argument, but its application to the specific facts of this case is notable. The respondent also innovatively argued that the State was at fault for not informing her about the vacancy.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in directing the State to give effect to the additional list and appoint the respondent.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in directing the State to give effect to the additional list and appoint the respondent. | No. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order. | The Court held that Entry 66 of the 1967 Rules does not create a right to appointment, and the High Court erred in assuming otherwise. The Court also stated that the State was not obligated to inform the respondent about the vacancy. |
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 an employer’s decision to fill or not fill vacancies is within its domain, and a writ court should not interfere in the absence of discrimination or arbitrariness.
- K. Thulaseedharan v. Kerala State Public Service Commission (2007) 6 SCC 190 – The Supreme Court reiterated that the employer has the discretion not to fill vacancies even if a person’s name is on the select list.
- Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 – The Supreme Court held that a notification for appointment is merely an invitation to qualified candidates and that successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed unless the recruitment rules specify.
- State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220 – The Supreme Court held that the State is not under a legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate.
- Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana (1986) 4 SCC 268 – The Supreme Court reiterated that the State is not under a legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate.
- Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 122 – The Supreme Court reiterated that the State is not under a legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate.
Legal Provisions:
- Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, Entry 66 of the Schedule: The rule which deals with the ‘Primary School Assistant Cadre’.
| Authority | Type | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Subha B. Nair & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 210, Supreme Court of India | Case | Followed to emphasize that the employer has the discretion to fill or not fill vacancies. |
| K. Thulaseedharan v. Kerala State Public Service Commission (2007) 6 SCC 190, Supreme Court of India | Case | Followed to support the view that the employer is not obligated to fill vacancies even if candidates are on the select list. |
| Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, Supreme Court of India | Case | Followed to highlight that a notification for appointment is merely an invitation and does not create a right to appointment. |
| State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220, Supreme Court of India | Case | Followed to reiterate that the State is not under a legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate. |
| Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana (1986) 4 SCC 268, Supreme Court of India | Case | Followed to reiterate that the State is not under a legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate. |
| Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 122, Supreme Court of India | Case | Followed to reiterate that the State is not under a legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate. |
| Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, Entry 66 of the Schedule | Legal Provision | Interpreted to clarify that it does not create a right to appointment, but only provides for the preparation of an additional list. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| State’s submission: Additional list valid for six months. | The Court acknowledged the State’s reliance on the 11 April 2003 clarification but clarified that it was an executive instruction and not a statutory rule. The court held that the statutory rules govern the issue. |
| State’s submission: No right to appointment based on waitlist. | The Court agreed with the State, citing Subha B. Nair and Shankarsan Dash, and held that mere inclusion in the additional list does not create a right to appointment. |
| Respondent’s submission: Executive instruction cannot override statutory rules. | The Court agreed that the statutory rules prevail over the executive instruction. |
| Respondent’s submission: Additional list valid until subsequent notification. | The Court interpreted Entry 66 of the 1967 Rules to mean that the additional list ceases to operate from the date of publication of notification for subsequent recruitment, and does not create an obligation to appoint. |
| Respondent’s submission: State should have informed about vacancy. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the operation of the additional list depends on the time specified in the rules, not on the knowledge of individual candidates. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court relied on Subha B. Nair & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 210* to reiterate that an employer has the discretion to fill or not fill vacancies.
- The Supreme Court also cited Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47* to emphasize that a notification for appointment is merely an invitation and does not create a right to appointment.
- The Supreme Court interpreted Entry 66 of the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, to clarify that it does not create a right to appointment, but only provides for the preparation of an additional list.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the relevant rules and the established legal position that inclusion in a waitlist does not guarantee a right to appointment. The Court emphasized that the State’s actions must be in accordance with the law and that the High Court had erred in assuming a right to appointment where none existed. The Court also highlighted that the operation of the additional list is governed by the rules, not by the knowledge of individual candidates. The Court’s reasoning focused on the following points:
- The statutory rules (Entry 66) do not mandate appointment from the additional list.
- The executive instruction (11 April 2003) cannot override the statutory rules.
- The State has discretion in filling vacancies, subject to not acting arbitrarily.
- The operation of the additional list is based on the rules, not on individual candidate’s knowledge.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on Statutory Rules | 35% |
| Discretion of the State | 30% |
| No right to appointment from waitlist | 25% |
| Rejection of High Court’s reasoning | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the argument that the State should have informed the respondent about the vacancy but rejected it, stating that the operation of the additional list depends on the time specified in the rules, not on the knowledge of individual candidates. The Court also noted that the High Court had incorrectly assumed that a right to appointment existed based on Entry 66 of the Rules. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory rules and the established legal position that inclusion in a waitlist does not create a right to appointment. The Court’s decision was based on a clear interpretation of the law and precedent, and the Court did not find any reason to deviate from the established position.
The Supreme Court stated, “The position that emerges from the above decisions is 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.”
The Court also clarified, “Mere publication of the Additional List does not create any right to be appointed. There is no such mandate in the Rule.”
Finally, the Court concluded, “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.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges.
Key Takeaways
- Inclusion in an additional list (waitlist) for government jobs does not guarantee a right to appointment.
- The validity of an additional list is determined by the relevant rules and not by the knowledge of individual candidates.
- The State has the discretion to fill vacancies, subject to not acting arbitrarily.
- Executive instructions cannot override statutory rules.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the Civil Appeal No. 3062 of 2023 filed by the State of Karnataka stands allowed and the decision of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 51904 of 2019 dated 31.01.2020 is set aside.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere inclusion in an additional list (waitlist) does not create a right to appointment, and the decision to fill vacancies from the additional list is left to the discretion of the State, subject to not acting arbitrarily. This case reinforces the established position of law and does not change any previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Karnataka vs. Smt. Bharathi S. clarifies that candidates on a waitlist for government jobs do not have an automatic right to appointment. The Court emphasized that the State has the discretion to fill vacancies and that the validity of a waitlist is governed by the relevant rules, not by the knowledge of individual candidates. This decision reinforces the established legal position that inclusion in a waitlist does not guarantee a right to appointment.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Recruitment Rules
Child Category: Additional List
Child Category: 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 Category: Entry 66, Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967
FAQ
Q: Does being on a waitlist for a government job guarantee me a job?
A: No, being on a waitlist does not guarantee a job. The Supreme Court has clarified that inclusion in an additional list (waitlist) does not create a right to appointment. The State has the discretion to fill vacancies, subject to not acting arbitrarily.
Q: How long is a waitlist valid?
A: The validity of a waitlist is determined by the relevant rules, not by the knowledge of individual candidates. In this case, the rules specified that the additional list would cease to operate from the date of publication of notification for subsequent recruitment.
Q: Can the government change the rules for waitlists?
A: Yes, the government can change the rules for waitlists. However, the rules must be followed, and executive instructions cannot override statutory rules. The State cannot act arbitrarily and its actions will be subject to judicial review.
Q: What should I do if I am on a waitlist?
A: If you are on a waitlist, you should monitor the official notifications and stay informed about any changes in the rules. You should also be aware that there is no guarantee of appointment, and the State has discretion in filling vacancies.
Q: What does this judgment mean for future government recruitments?
A: This judgment reinforces the legal position that inclusion in a waitlist does not guarantee a right to appointment. It clarifies that the State has discretion in filling vacancies and that the validity of a waitlist is governed by the relevant rules. This will likely result in more transparency and adherence to rules in future government recruitments.