STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SANTHOSH KUMAR C
Service Law - Absence of Waiting List Provision Precludes Next-in-Merit Candidates from Claiming Vacancies Arising from Non-Joining of Selected Candidates.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 276
Decision Date: 23-03-2026
List of Laws
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997; Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022; Service Law - Right to Appointment and Select Lists; Constitution of India, Article 226
- Facts: The Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) initiated recruitment in 2011 for 362 Gazetted Probationer posts under the 1997 Rules. The respondent, an ex-serviceman, was selected and appointed as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. However, another candidate (Sri Aiyappa M.A.), selected for the more preferred post of Assistant Commissioner (KAS Junior Scale) in the same category, failed to undergo medical examination or report for duty. The respondent submitted a representation in 2022 claiming he should be appointed to the now-vacant KAS post as he was the next candidate in the merit list and had expressed preference for it. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) rejected this, stating that unfilled posts due to non-reporting must be treated as fresh vacancies.
- Procedural Posture: The respondent challenged the DPAR's rejection before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his application. On further challenge, the High Court of Karnataka set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the State to consider the respondent for the post. The State of Karnataka subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
- Issue: Whether a candidate placed below a selected candidate in a merit list has a legal right to claim appointment to a vacancy arising from the selected candidate's failure to join or complete pre-appointment formalities, in the absence of specific rules providing for a waiting list.
- Holding: No, the respondent has no such right. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the original writ petition.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the 1997 Rules do not provide for a reserve, waiting, or additional select list. Under Rule 11, the KPSC prepares a list equal to the number of vacancies, and once this process culminates in appointments, the list cannot be operated as an "open-ended reservoir" to fill subsequent vacancies. The Court emphasized the settled principle that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. Furthermore, the Court noted that the High Court conflated the factual existence of a vacancy with the legal authority to fill it. In a multi-service recruitment based on preferences, allowing such "downward movement" without statutory sanction would unsettle a finalized allocation process. The Karnataka Civil Services (Validation) Act, 2022, further reinforced the legislative intent of attaching finality to the 2011 selection list.
🔒 For Members Only