Supreme Court Holds Waitlist Does Not Create Vested Right; Sets Aside High Court Direction To Absorb Candidate

A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal by the Union of India and All India Radio against a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which had directed the respondents to absorb the petitioner-respondent on the post of Technician in the Scheduled Caste quota pursuant to earlier recruitment proceedings.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 25.06.2024 and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent. The Bench held that mere placement on a waiting list did not give rise to a vested right of appointment once the selected candidates had joined their posts and a fresh recruitment process commenced. The Court noted that a statement made on 15.01.1999 before the Tribunal—recorded as, "as soon as vacancy would arise against the SC quota, the applicant would be absorbed"—could not be enforced where doing so would require violating Recruitment Rules or prejudice candidates in subsequent recruitments. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also relied on settled precedent that "A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join..." (Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat).

Background The dispute arose from a 1997 recruitment exercise by All India Radio (Eastern Zone) for three Technician posts reserved for Scheduled Castes. The respondent was placed at serial number one in the reserved panel (wait list); all three selected candidates joined the posts. The respondent challenged the selection before the Central Administrative Tribunal (O.A. No.989/1997). During proceedings the appellants’ counsel recorded the assurance on 15.01.1999 that the respondent would be absorbed if an SC vacancy arose. The Tribunal, while rejecting merits of the respondent’s broader challenge, directed the appellants to consider his case in terms of that assurance. The High Court in 2009 modified but did not disturb that direction. After a fresh recruitment notice in 2013 and subsequent interim directions, a Deputy Director General speaking order in 2016 held there was no vacancy and that the respondent was age-barred under Recruitment Rules. The Tribunal and the High Court entertained further petitions; the Division Bench in 2024 concluded the assurance had not been honoured, directed absorption within four weeks and awarded notional effect from 19.07.2013. The Supreme Court found that enforcing the 1999 concession would impermissibly extend a waiting list and contravene recruitment rules, and therefore set aside the High Court order. The appeal succeeded and the writ petition stood dismissed; no costs were awarded.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1235 Case Title: The Union of India & Ors. v. Subit Kumar Das Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Counsel for the Appellants For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent