Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, which had allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent, an ex-serviceman, and set aside orders of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and a communication from the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. The dispute centered on recruitment to posts of Karnataka Gazetted Probationers under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997. The KPSC issued a notification in 2011, and the respondent participated, being selected as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes but not for the post of Assistant Commissioner, Karnataka Administrative Service, under the GM/Ex-MP category, which went to another candidate who did not join. The respondent claimed this unfilled post should be offered to him as he was next below in selection. The DPAR rejected this, citing no provision for an additional list under the 1997 Rules, and the Tribunal upheld this. The High Court reversed, holding the vacancy remained unfilled and Rule 11(3) was not attracted, directing consideration of the respondent's case. The Supreme Court considered whether the vacancy could be claimed by the respondent or must be filled through fresh recruitment. The Court analyzed Rules 4(3) and 11 of the 1997 Rules, noting the scheme involves recruitment against notified vacancies with service-specific lists prepared equal to vacancies, without provision for reserve or waiting lists. It emphasized that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, referencing precedents like Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India. The Court found the respondent's claim unsustainable as the rules do not allow filling vacancies from non-joining by operating the same list beyond its framework. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Tribunal's order, holding the vacancy must be treated as fresh and filled through subsequent recruitment.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Recruitment Rules - Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 - The Supreme Court examined whether a vacancy arising from a selected candidate's non-joining could be filled by the next candidate under the 1997 Rules - Held that the rules do not provide for an additional or waiting list, and such vacancy must be treated as fresh and filled through subsequent recruitment, as the select list is limited to notified vacancies (Paras 5-10). B) Service Law - Select List Rights - Inclusion in select list does not confer indefeasible right to appointment - The Court reiterated that mere inclusion in a select list makes a candidate eligible for consideration but does not create a vested right to claim appointment dehors the statutory framework, citing Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India - Held that the respondent's claim lacked basis as the 1997 Rules do not allow operation of the same list beyond its statutory purpose (Paras 9-10).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether, under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997, a vacancy arising on account of a selected candidate not undergoing mandatory pre-appointment formalities or not reporting for duty could be claimed by the respondent as of right on being next below in selection order, or whether such vacancy had to be treated as a vacancy to be filled only through a subsequent recruitment process.
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the High Court, and restored the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Tribunal and the communication dated 27.06.2022 issued by DPAR, holding that the vacancy must be treated as fresh and filled through subsequent recruitment under the 1997 Rules.
