Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10443

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Atul S. Chandurkar, J
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Subit Kumar Das – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO……………OF 2025 | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No………. of 2025 | Diary No.57192 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Madhusmita Bora
For the Respondents: Rakesh Kumar

A waitlist does not confer a vested right to future appointments as it expires upon the exhaustion of original vacancies. Furthermore, erroneous legal concessions by counsel regarding recruitment eligibility are non-binding if they contradict established statutory rules and administrative procedures.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment - Waitlist - Nature of right - A waiting list prepared for a specific selection does not furnish an infinite source of recruitment and operates only for the contingency where a selected candidate fails to join - Mere placement in a reserved panel does not create any vested right for appointment, especially after the original vacancies are filled and the term of the waitlist has expired. (Para 12)

(B) Service Law - Concession by Counsel - Binding nature - A concession concerning a question of law or one that contradicts statutory recruitment rules made by legal counsel is not binding on the party represented - Such an erroneous concession cannot compel an employer to act in violation of established recruitment policy or confer undue benefits upon a candidate. (Paras 15, 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
Multiple recruitment disputes arose from an initial selection process for technical posts, where the respondent was placed at the top of a reserved panel. Years later, relying on an assurance regarding absorption given by legal counsel during prior litigation, the respondent sought appointment against future vacancies despite clear statutory age bars and the absence of vacant posts under the relevant recruitment criteria.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that all original vacancies were successfully filled and the waitlist had exhausted. Since the initial selection process was legally valid and the candidate lacked a vested right to appointment for future vacancies existing years later, the prior litigation-based concessions did not create a perpetual mandate for employment.

Issues: Whether a waitlisted candidate possesses a vested right to claim future appointments based on a prior legal assurance, and whether such an assurance by counsel binds the employer even when it contradicts statutory recruitment rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A waitlist is not an open-ended pool for recruitment but a limited instrument for specific, concurrent vacancies. Concessions made by authorized personnel that deviate from mandatory service regulations are null and void to the extent of such contradiction, as they cannot override the established rules of governance for public service hiring.

Result: Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment set-aside and the writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeal and conflicting contentions regarding appointment absorption. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. historical progression of litigation and administrative decisions regarding recruitment and waitlisting. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. competing arguments on vested rights of waitlisted candidates and binding nature of administrative concessions. (Para 9 , 10)
4. waitlist status does not confer a vested right to future appointment. (Para 11 , 12)
5. concessions on questions of law made by counsel are not binding if in conflict with statutory recruitment rules. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. final order dismissing the respondent's claim and setting aside the high court judgment. (Para 18)

J U D G M E N T

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the All India Radio through its Director General are aggrieved by the direction issued by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court requiring them to absorb the services of the respondent on the post of Technician at the Eastern Zone of All India Radio under the Scheduled Castes (SC) category. According to the appellants, such direction to absorb the services of the respondent enlarges the right of a candidate placed in the Reserved Panel much after its expiry and runs counter to the Recruitment Rules. The respondent supports the said direction by contending that the appellants had committed to absorb the respondent in service as far back as on 15.01.1999 and the High Court rightly directed so.

4. Facts relevant for considering the challenge as raised to the aforesaid direction are that pursuant to a requisition made by the All India Radio, Eastern Zone for making appointment on the post of Technician, names of various candidates maintained by the Employment Exchange came to be forwarded. Three posts of Technician were reserved for candidates belonging to the SC category. The Selection Committee interviewed eleven candidates and finally selected three candidates in the order of merit against the existing vacancies. The name of the respondent was placed at Serial No.1 in the Reserved Panel. It was stated that the candidates placed in the Reserved Panel would be appointed only in case any of the three selected candidates did not join the said post for any reason. The respondent being aggrieved by the decision of the Selection Committee approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) by filing Original Application No.989 of 1997 challenging its decision and seeking his appointment on the post of Technician. On 25.08.1997, the Tribunal passed an interim order and directed that any appointment made of the selected candidates would abide by the result of the Original Application. In the said proceedings, the respondent moved an interim application praying that no further appointment be made on the post of Technician without considering his name pursuant to the earlier recruitment process. During the course of the hearing of the said application, a statement was made on behalf of the appellants which was recorded in the order dated 15.01.1999 as under:

“3. Mrs. Banerjee, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that till the filling up of post of technician from the reserved quota viz. 1 OBC and 1 ST is taken by the respondent authorities, the applicant’s case would not be considered. She further submits as soon as vacancy would arise against the SC quota, the applicant would be absorbed.”

On the basis of the said statement, no further orders were passed on the interim application.

5. Original Application No.989 of 1997 came to be decided by the Tribunal on 09.12.2004. The Tribunal recorded various findings, inter alia, holding that there did not appear to be any departure from the procedure and instructions that were required to be followed while undertaking selection. It further held that the allegation of bias as made by the respondent against the members of the Sel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 10443

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAtul S. Chandurkar, JUnion Of India – AppellantVersusSubit Kumar Das – RespondentCIVIL APPEAL NO……………OF 2025 | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No………. of 2025 | Diary No.57192 of 2024

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Atul S. Chandurkar, J
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Subit Kumar Das – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO……………OF 2025 | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No………. of 2025 | Diary No.57192 of 2024