1. An unsuccessful candidate sought appointment to a vacant post following the selected candidate's failure to report for duty, citing their lower rank in the original recruitment merit list. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
State of Karnataka & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Santhosh Kumar C – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3689 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.35896 of 2025)
Decided On : 23-03-2026
Important Points
Inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment; vacancies arising from non-reporting must be filled through a new recruitment process as per the governing rules.
Subject
Administrative Law - Employment
Act Referred
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT: S.19
KARNATAKA RECRUITMENT OF GAZETTED PROBATIONERS APPOINTMENT BY COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS RULES: R.11, R.11(1), R.11(3), R.4(3)
KARNATAKA RECRUITMENT OF GAZETTED PROBATIONERS APPOINTMENT BY COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS RULES: R.11, R.11(1), R.11(3), R.4(3)
Headnote
(A) Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 - Rules 4(3) and 11 - Claim for appointment to unfilled post - High Court directed consideration for appointment based on vacancy due to selected candidate's non-reporting - Tribunal's dismissal upheld as no provision for further appointment from existing list under 1997 Rules. (Paras 6-20)
(B) Employment Law - Selection criteria and principles - Inclusion in the select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, unless explicitly stated in rules. (Paras 9-11)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, after failing to secure an appointment as Assistant Commissioner due to a selected candidate's non-reporting, claimed the unfilled post should be allotted to him based on being next in line in the final select list of KPSC. His claim was rejected by DPAR and later dismissed by the Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal correctly assessed that the 1997 Rules do not allow for an additional selection list and any vacancies arising must be addressed by a fresh recruitment process.
Issues: Whether the respondent had a right to claim appointment to a post that remained unfilled due to a selected candidate failing to complete pre-appointment requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the existing statutory framework does not allow appointment for such vacancies from the same select list, reaffirming the principle that a candidate's inclusion in a select list does not equate to a right to appointment unless stated by rules.
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
(B) Employment Law - Selection criteria and principles - Inclusion in the select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, unless explicitly stated in rules. (Paras 9-11)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, after failing to secure an appointment as Assistant Commissioner due to a selected candidate's non-reporting, claimed the unfilled post should be allotted to him based on being next in line in the final select list of KPSC. His claim was rejected by DPAR and later dismissed by the Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal correctly assessed that the 1997 Rules do not allow for an additional selection list and any vacancies arising must be addressed by a fresh recruitment process.
Issues: Whether the respondent had a right to claim appointment to a post that remained unfilled due to a selected candidate failing to complete pre-appointment requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the existing statutory framework does not allow appointment for such vacancies from the same select list, reaffirming the principle that a candidate's inclusion in a select list does not equate to a right to appointment unless stated by rules.
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. Ms. Bhumi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Awanish Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Shloka Narayanan, AOR Ms. Shubhani D Krishan, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. Ms. Bhumi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Awanish Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Shloka Narayanan, AOR Ms. Shubhani D Krishan, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. The petitioner contended the vacancy should be filled by the next merit-listed candidate, while authorities argued the absence of statutory provisions allowing operation of a waiting list. (Para 3 )
3. The court found the recruitment rules provided for filled notified vacancies without an enabling provision for reserve or additional lists to accommodate candidates where selectees abandon posts. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 13 , 19 )
4. A candidate in a competitive recruitment process acquires no indefeasible right to appointment against vacant posts unless the governing rules expressly provide for a reserve or waiting list. (Para 9 , 10 , 15 , 17 )
5. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's writ petition. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. Can a candidate claim an unused vacancy from a selection list in the absence of explicit rules?
No. Inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. Without statutory provisions creating a reserve or waiting list, the government is not obligated to fill a post left vacant by a selected candidate’s failure to report using the same selection list. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 15 )
7. How does the requirement for specific service-wise preference impact subsequent appointments?
Since the rules require candidates to indicate specific service preferences and mandate separate lists for each, post-facto adjustments or transfers to fill different service-specific posts are not permitted under the statutory framework. (Para 6 , 13 , 16 )
8. What is the legal standing of legislative acts validating selection lists in recruitment disputes?
Validation acts affirm the finality of the recruitment process conducted by the commission, underscoring the legislative intent to prohibit the reopening of concluded selections through means not explicitly contemplated by the governing rules. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT
Vikram Nath, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Writ Petition No. 24455 of 2023 (SKSAT), whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Application No. 4990 of 2022, as well as the communication dated 27.06.2022 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as “DPAR”). By the said judgment and order, the High Court directed the appellants, namely the State of Karnataka and its authorities, to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to the post in question.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
3.1. The Karnataka Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “KPSC”) issued a notification dated 03.11.2011 inviting applications for recruitment to 362 posts of Karnataka Gazetted Probationers in Group A and Group B Services under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “1997 Rules”).
3.2. The respondent, who is an ex-serviceman, participated in the said selection process. Upon conclusion of the process, the KPSC published the final select list on 21.03.2014. In the General Merit Ex-Military Person category (hereinafter referred to as the “GM/Ex-MP category”), one Sri Aiyappa M.A. was selected to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Karnataka Administrative Service, Group A, Junior Scale. The respondent was not selected to that post. He was, however, selected to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Group A, pursuant to the same recruitment.
3.3. According to the record, Sri Aiyappa M.A. did not undergo the mandatory medical examination or police verification and did not report for duty. The respondent, on the other hand, was appointed as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Group A, by notification dated 05.05.2022 and joined duty on 09.05.2022.
3.4. On 26.05.2022, the respondent submitted a representation to DPAR, claiming that since Sri Aiyappa M.A. had not joined, the post of Assistant Commissioner, Karnataka Administrative Service, Group A, Junior Scale, under the GM/Ex-MP category remained unfilled and ought to be offered to him. The basis of the claim was that he was immediately next below the selected candidate and had indicated preference for the said post.
3.5. By communication dated 27.06.2022, DPAR rejected the respondent’s request. The communication stated that under the 1997 Rules there was no provision for preparation of an additional select list and that a post left unfilled on account of non-reporting by a selected candidate was required to be treated as a fresh vacancy to be filled in a subsequent recruitment.
3.6. Aggrieved by the said communication, the respondent filed Application No. 4990 of 2022 before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In the said application, he questioned the communication dated 27.06.2022 and sought a direction to the respondents therein to select and appoint him to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Karnataka Administrative Service, Group A, Junior Scale, under the GM/Ex-MP category against the vacancy said to have remained unfilled on account of the non-reporting of Sri Aiyappa M.A.
3.7. The appellants and the KPSC opposed the application. Their stand was that the 2011 recruitment process had culminated in a final select list corresponding to the vacancies notified, that the 1997 Rules did not contemplate any additional or waiting list, and that in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and Rule 11 of the 1997 Rules, a vacancy arising on account of non-joining by a selected candidate coul
