Supreme Court settles the issue of waiting lists in teacher recruitment: Vallampati Sathish Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 April 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 425
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a candidate who is next on the merit list claim a job when a selected candidate does not join, especially when the rules explicitly state there is no waiting list? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning teacher recruitment in Andhra Pradesh. The core issue was whether the appellant, who was next in line, could be appointed to a position left vacant after a selected candidate failed to attend counseling. The Supreme Court, in this case, upheld the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which stated that in the absence of a waiting list, the next candidate cannot claim the post. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Vallampati Sathish Babu, participated in a recruitment process for teachers under the Notification dated 30.01.2012 (DSC-2012), which had 33 notified vacancies. The recruitment was governed by the Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for the post of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2012. The appellant secured 58.08 marks and was placed 34th in the merit list. The respondents declared the selection of candidates up to serial number 33 and invited them for counseling. One candidate, who was ranked 18th, did not attend the counseling held on 28.12.2012, leaving one post vacant.

The appellant then made a representation to the respondents seeking consideration for the vacant post, relying on para 8 of the Guidelines issued under G.O. Ms. No. 91 dated 03.11.2012. When he was not offered the job, he approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking a direction to be appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher (S.G.T.). The Tribunal ruled in his favor, but the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati overturned the Tribunal’s decision, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking a direction to be appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher (S.G.T.) due to one vacancy remaining unfilled. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application (O.A.), holding that the appellant was entitled to appointment as per para 8 of the Guidelines issued under G.O. Ms. No. 91 dated 03.11.2012.

Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order, the State of Andhra Pradesh filed a writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati. The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal’s order. The High Court held that the appellant did not have a right to claim the unfilled post, as there was no provision for a waiting list. This led the original applicant to file the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The appointments were governed by the Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for the post of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2012, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, read with sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 169, sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 195, and Section 243 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act.

Rule 16(5) of the Rules, 2012 states:
“(5) The number of candidates selected shall not be more than the number of vacancies notified. There shall be no waiting list and posts if any unfilled for any reason whatsoever shall be carried forward for future recruitment.”

The State also issued detailed guidelines vide G.O. Ms. No. 91 dated 03.11.2012. Clause 8 of these guidelines outlines the procedure for verification of certificates and preparation of select lists. Specifically, clause 8(g) states:
“After due completion of the above exercise the District Selection Committee shall prepare the final selection list of the candidates for all categories of the teachers. Once the final selection list is prepared, there shall be no waiting list and posts if any unfiled for any reason whatsoever shall be carried forward for future recruitment as per sub rule (5) of Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for the posts of teachers (scheme of selection) Rules, 2012.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments

• The appellant argued that until all 33 notified posts were filled, the selection process could not be considered complete.
• According to Rule 16(5) of the Rules, 2012, the number of candidates selected should not exceed the number of vacancies. Since one candidate did not turn up for counseling, the selection was incomplete, and the appellant, being next in merit, should be appointed.
• The appellant contended that the purpose of the guidelines was to ensure that all vacancies are filled. The final selection list should be prepared only after verification and counseling.
• The appellant relied on a High Court decision in District Educational Officer & Member Convenor, District Selection Committee, Nizamabad & Ors. Vs. B. Annapurna, where it was held that unfilled vacant posts must be filled, subject to the number of vacancies and candidates selected on merit. The Special Leave Petition against this judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
• The appellant argued that the case of State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department and Ors. Vs. Samiula Shareef and Ors., 2014 (1) ALT 165 DB, relied upon by the High Court, was distinguishable.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The respondents argued that they followed the procedure under Rule 8 of the guidelines, which includes notifying a provisional list, verifying candidates, and publishing a final selection list.
• They contended that once the final selection list was published on 25.12.2012, there could be no waiting list, as per Rule 8(g) of the guidelines. The failure of one candidate to appear for counseling occurred after the final list was published.
• The respondents relied on the Supreme Court decision in Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh Prasad & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 681, which held that if rules do not provide for a waiting list, no waitlisted candidate can be appointed if a selected candidate does not join.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to an appointment to a post that remained unfilled due to one selected candidate not appearing for counseling.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon

Legal Provisions Considered

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the explicit statutory provisions and guidelines that prohibited the creation of a waiting list. The Court emphasized that:

• The rules clearly stated that there shall be no waiting list.
• Unfilled posts were to be carried forward for future recruitment.
• The final selection list was prepared and published, after which no further appointments could be made from a waiting list, as there was no provision for it.
• The court relied on the precedent set in Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh Prasad & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 681, which stated that in the absence of any statutory rules to the contrary, the employer is not bound to offer the unfilled vacancy to the candidates next below the said candidates in the merit list.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment Analysis

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the clear language of the statutory rules and guidelines. The Court reasoned that:

• The rules explicitly state that there shall be no waiting list, and unfilled posts shall be carried forward for future recruitment.
• The final selection list was prepared and published, and the vacancy occurred after this list was finalized.
• The court relied on the precedent set in Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh Prasad & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 681, which stated that in the absence of any statutory rules to the contrary, the employer is not bound to offer the unfilled vacancy to the candidates next below the said candidates in the merit list.

The court rejected the appellant’s argument that all 33 posts had to be filled, stating that Rule 16(5) prohibits a waiting list and that the number of candidates selected should not exceed the number of vacancies. The court also distinguished the case of District Educational Officer & Member Convenor, District Selection Committee, Nizamabad & Ors. Vs. B. Annapurna, stating that the facts were different and that the present case was governed by specific rules prohibiting a waiting list.

The Court quoted from the judgment:
“The number of candidates selected shall not be more than the number of vacancies notified. There shall be no waiting list and posts if any unfilled for any reason whatsoever shall be carried forward for future recruitment.”

“Once the final selection list is prepared, there shall be no waiting list and posts if any unfiled for any reason whatsoever shall be carried forward for future recruitment as per sub rule (5) of Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for the posts of teachers (scheme of selection) Rules, 2012.”

“In the absence of any provision, the employer is not bound to prepare a waiting list in addition to the panel of selected candidates and to appoint the candidates from the waiting list in case the candidates from the panel do not join.”

Key Takeaways

• No Waiting List: If recruitment rules explicitly state there is no waiting list, candidates next in merit cannot claim a position if a selected candidate does not join.
• Statutory Rules Prevail: Courts will strictly adhere to the statutory rules and guidelines governing recruitment processes.
• Carrying Forward Vacancies: Unfilled vacancies in such cases will be carried forward for future recruitment, as per the rules.
• Employer’s Discretion: Employers are not obligated to offer unfilled vacancies to candidates next in the merit list in the absence of a specific provision for a waiting list.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that if the recruitment rules explicitly state that there is no waiting list, then the next candidate in the merit list cannot claim the post if a selected candidate does not join. This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory rules must be strictly adhered to, and in the absence of a provision for a waiting list, no such list can be assumed or created. This ruling clarifies the legal position on waiting lists in recruitment processes where the rules explicitly prohibit them, thus solidifying the existing legal framework.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to an appointment on the unfilled vacancy. The Court emphasized that the statutory rules and guidelines explicitly prohibited the creation of a waiting list, and unfilled posts were to be carried forward for future recruitment. This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory rules must be strictly adhered to, and in the absence of a provision for a waiting list, no such list can be assumed or created.