Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka appealed against a High Court judgment directing the appointment of the Respondent, Smt. Bharathi S., to the post of Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary School in Chikkaballapur District. The Respondent had applied pursuant to a notification by the Department of Public Instruction. After the selection process, a final select list of five candidates was issued on 20.01.2016, in which the Respondent was not included. However, an Additional List (Wait List) containing only the Respondent's name was published on 29.02.2016, with a note that mere inclusion in the list would not confer a right to appointment and that selection was provisional and subject to government directions. Later, when a selected candidate expressed unwillingness to take up the post, the Respondent requested consideration for appointment on 08.09.2016. The State rejected her request on 17.02.2017. The High Court directed the State to appoint the Respondent. The Supreme Court, considering the rules and principles governing services, held that inclusion in the Additional List does not create a right to appointment or a co-relative obligation on the State. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's directions.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Right to Appointment - Inclusion in Additional List (Wait List) - The issue was whether a candidate whose name appears in the Additional List (Wait List) has a right to appointment. The Supreme Court held that enlistment of name in the Additional List neither creates a right nor a co-relative obligation for appointment. The Additional List is provisional and subject to directions from the government. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether inclusion of a candidate's name in the Additional List (Wait List) creates a right to appointment or a co-relative obligation on the State to appoint.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. High Court judgment set aside. No direction for appointment of respondent.
Law Points
- Inclusion in additional list/wait list does not create a right to appointment
- Additional list is provisional and subject to government directions
- Mere empanelment does not confer indefeasible right to appointment
