SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 553

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI., PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
The State Of Karnataka & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Smt. Bharathi S. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3062 of 2023 Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 12635 of 2020
Decided On : 19-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Goel, AAG Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Adithya Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Bhaskar Nayak, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Enlistment of name in Additional List neither creates a right nor a co-relative obligation for appointment.

Headnote:

Service Law – Appointment – [Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 as amended in 2001 – Entry 66] – Post of Assistant Teacher – Enlistment of name in Additional List neither creates a right nor a co-relative obligation for appointment – Additional List (wait list) will subsist for a period of six months from date of its announcement – Mere publication of Additional List does not create any right to be appointed – There is no such mandate in the Rule – Duty to fill up vacancies from Additional List (waiting list) can arise only on the basis of a mandatory rule – In absence of such a mandate, decision to fill all vacancies from Additional List, is left to wisdom of State – Operation of Additional List which is to be published in official Gazette will depend upon time specified in Rule and not as per knowledge of individual candidates – Decision of High Court in Writ Petition set aside. [Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 as amended in 2001 – Entry 66] (Paras 1, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 13)

Facts of the case:

Present Civil Appeal by State of Karnataka impugns judgment of the High Court directing appointment of Respondent to the post of Assistant Teacher, as her name appears in Additional List (Wait List) of candidates.

Findings of Court:

High Court committed error in directing the State to give effect to the Additional List and appoint the respondent within three months from the date of the order.

Result : Civil Appeal allowed.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Appeal by the State of Karnataka impugns the judgment of the High Court directing appointment of the Respondent to the post of Assistant Teacher, as her name appears in the Additional List (Wait List) of candidates. Having considered the rules and the principles that govern the services, we have held that enlistment of name in the Additional List neither creates a right nor a co-relative obligation for appointment. For reasons that follow, we have allowed the appeal filed by the State and set aside the directions of the High Court. Facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

2. Pursuant to a notification issued by the Department of Public Instructions, the Respondent applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School at Chikkaballapur District. Post the selection process, the selection authority, issued the final select list of five candidates on 20.01.2016. The Respondent was not one of them. However, an Additional List (which is in the nature of a wait list) was published on 29.02.2016, which comprised of just one candidate, the Respondent herein. The Additional List had a note which stated that mere inclusion in the list would not confer a right to appointment and that the selection of the candidates named in the Additional List is provisional and subject to the directions received by the government from time to time.

3. A few months later i.e., on 21.07.2016, when a selected candidate made a representation that she was not inclined to take up the post, the Respondent addressed a letter to the Appellants on 08.09.2016 to consider her candidature since she was the only candidate in the Additional List.

4. Respondent’s request for appointment was rejected by the State on 17.02.2017 on the basis of Proceedings of Govt. of Karnataka dated 11.04.2003, which provides that an Additional List shall remain valid up to six months from the date of its publication or the date when all the posts are filled up, whichever is earlier. Since the Additional List was published on 29.02.2016, it would be valid up to 28.08.2016. As the Respondent made a representation only on 08.09.2016, which was beyond the six-month period, the request of the Respondent was rejected. This decision was challenged by the Respondent before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal dismissed the Application by relying on the Proceedings dated 11.04.2003. This decision was challenged by the Respondent before the High Court of Karnataka in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. The High Court, by the judgment impugned herein, set aside the order of the Tribunal, holding that the State failed in its obligation to inform the respondent about the existence of the vacancy that has arisen, and also that, there were “latches in filling up the vacancy”. For this reason, the High Court was of the opinion that the respondent was not at fault when she made her application after expiry of six months. The appellants were directed to give effect to the Additional List within three months from the date of the order.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. At the outset, the Appellant has placed reliance on the Proceedings of the Government of Karnataka dated 11.04.2003, which is essentially a clarification about the life of the Additional List. The relevant portion of the clarification as under: -

    “And for the question of till how long the Additional list is valid?

    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.”

7. As per the above referred clarification, the Additional List (wait list) will subsist for a period of six months from the date of its announcement. In the present case, the selection process which commenced on 23.03.2015, culminated in the issuance of a selection list on 20.01.2016. The


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top