No automatic right to appointment from selection list, rules Supreme Court

New Delhi: In a significant ruling on government recruitment, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that candidates in a selection list cannot claim appointment as a matter of right if a selected candidate fails to complete formalities or does not join duty.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside an earlier order of the Karnataka High Court, which had directed authorities to consider a candidate for appointment to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (KAS).

The apex court observed that in the recruitment process conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission, there is no statutory provision for maintaining a waiting list or supplementary list. Therefore, if a selected candidate fails to join the post, another candidate from the same selection list cannot automatically claim that vacancy.

“The selection list only determines eligibility and merit. It does not confer an enforceable right to appointment beyond the notified vacancies,” the bench noted. It further emphasised that any vacancy arising after the completion of the recruitment process must be filled in accordance with existing service rules and through fresh recruitment, not by extending the same selection list.

Rejecting the respondent’s argument that he was next in line in the merit list and therefore entitled to the post, the court held that such claims are not legally sustainable in the absence of a provision for a waiting list.

The case pertains to a recruitment notification issued by the KPSC in 2011 for 362 Gazetted Probationer posts. The respondent, a former serviceman, had appeared for the examination and was later selected for the post of Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), while another candidate was selected for the higher post of Sub-Divisional Officer.

However, the selected candidate for the higher post failed to complete mandatory pre-appointment formalities, including medical examination and police verification, and did not report for duty. Subsequently, the respondent sought appointment to that post, claiming higher merit.

His request was initially rejected by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, citing the absence of provisions for a waiting list under the Karnataka Gazetted Probationers Recruitment Rules, 1997. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal also dismissed his plea.

Later, the Karnataka High Court had directed that the candidate be considered for the higher post, prompting the state government to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.

Accepting the state’s contention, the apex court ruled that once the final selection list is published and appointments are made against notified vacancies, the recruitment process is deemed complete. Any vacancy arising thereafter must be treated as a fresh vacancy.

The judgment reinforces the principle that selection in a merit list does not guarantee appointment beyond notified posts and underscores the importance of adhering strictly to statutory recruitment frameworks.