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.

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