No Vested Right For Next Candidate In Select List To Claim Appointment Just Because Selected Person Didn't Join : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a candidate cannot claim appointment as a matter of right from the same select list merely because a selected candidate failed to complete pre-appointment formalities or did not join duty. The Court emphasized that such a vacancy must be filled in accordance with the governing recruitment rules and not by operating the same select list beyond its statutory framework.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka and set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment which had directed consideration of the respondent for appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner in the Karnataka Administrative Service after the originally selected candidate did not report for duty

“Once that exercise had culminated in publication of the final list and appointments were made in accordance therewith, the respondent could not claim, in the absence of express statutory sanction, that he should be shifted to another post merely because the selected candidate for that post did not complete the pre-appointment formalities or did not join.”, observed the bench.

Background

The case arose from a recruitment notification issued in 2011 for 362 posts of Karnataka Gazetted Probationers in Group A and Group B services as per the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997. The respondent, an ex-serviceman, participated in the selection process and was appointed as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in May 2022.

Another candidate selected for the post of Assistant Commissioner in the Karnataka Administrative Service did not undergo the mandatory medical examination or police verification and did not report for duty. The respondent then sought appointment to that post, claiming that he was next in merit and had indicated preference for the position.

The State rejected his request, stating that the recruitment rules did not provide for preparation of an additional or waiting list and that any vacancy arising due to non-joining must be treated as a fresh vacancy to be filled through a subsequent recruitment process. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal upheld this position, but the High Court later quashed the decision and directed the authorities to consider the respondent's case.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the State appealed to the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Nath emphasized that a selection list makes a candidate eligible for consideration in accordance with the governing rules. It does not create a vested right to claim appointment dehors the statutory framework.

The Court noted that “the respondent does not point to any provision in the 1997 Rules under which a candidate placed below a selected candidate acquires a right to be appointed to a post left unfilled on account of noncompletion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining.”

“In the absence of such a provision, the mere fact that a selected candidate did not join cannot, by itself, create an enforceable right in favour of the respondent.”, the court added.

The Court rejected the Respondent's assumption to seek an appointment to a higher post on it being remaining unfilled or vacant, as a next candidate on a selection list. Noting that the 1997 Rules forbid migration to a higher post, the Court observed:

“…the respondent's case rests on an assumption that whenever a selected candidate does not complete the pre-appointment requirements or does not report for duty, the post must pass on to the next candidate below. Such an assumption may have held good only if the governing rules expressly so provided. In the absence of any such provision in the 1997 Rules, the respondent could claim no more than what the statutory framework permitted. That framework did not confer upon him any enforceable right to appointment to the post in question.”

“The Tribunal was right in holding that the 1997 Rules do not contemplate preparation or operation of any additional or waiting list, and that a post left unfilled on account of noncompletion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining by a selected candidate could not be claimed by the respondent as of right from the same selection process.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. VERSUS SANTHOSH KUMAR C

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC )282

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Awanish Gupta, Adv. Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. Ms. Bhumi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shloka Narayanan, AOR Ms. Shubhani D Krishan, Adv.