Mere Inclusion in Wait List Doesn’t Confer Right to Appointment | SC

Case Details: Union of India vs. Subit Kumar Das - [2025] 179 taxmann.com 404 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Atul S. Chandurkar, J.
• Ms Madhusmita Bora, AOR, Pawan Kishore Singh, Dipankar Singh & Ms Pavithra V., Advs. for the Member, for the Appellant.
• Rakesh Kumar, AOR, Pinaki Addy, Ms Neetu Singh, Ms Jyoti & Dheeraj Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Eastern Zone of All India Radio invited applications for making an appointment to the post of Technician. Three posts of Technician were reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. The Selection Committee interviewed eleven candidates and, in order of merit, selected three for existing vacancies. The name of the respondent was placed at serial No. 1 in the Reserved Panel.

It was stated that candidates placed on the Reserved Panel would be appointed only if any of the three selected candidates did not join the said post for any reason. The Respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging its decision and seeking his appointment to the post of Technician.

The Tribunal directed that any appointment of selected candidates would be made in accordance with the result of the application filed by the respondent. In the said proceedings, a statement was made on behalf of the appellants, which was recorded in an order dated 15-1-1999, that as soon as a vacancy would arise against the SC quota, the respondent would be absorbed.

Later, Prasar Bharati issued a fresh recruitment notice. The Respondent filed OA seeking absorption under the SC category as per the advertisement. By interim order, one SC Technician post in the East Zone was directed to be kept vacant.

On 27.11.2015, the Tribunal directed appellants to act in accordance with earlier orders and pass an appropriate order within three months. A speaking order dated 19.02.2016 by the Deputy Director General (P) stated that all three 1997 vacancies had been filled in accordance with the select list. The Respondent filed OA No. 436 of 2016. On 09.01.2020, the Tribunal directed the appellants to issue a fresh speaking order indicating the number of Technician vacancies after 27.11.2015 and whether the respondent was entitled to consideration in accordance with the prior directions.

The Respondent then filed a writ petition seeking, inter alia, appointment. The High Court, by the impugned order, directed the appellants to absorb the respondent on the post of Technician in any vacancy under the SC category in the Eastern Zone. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that the mere placement on the waitlist does not create any vested right to be appointed. Further, the wait list operates for a limited period and thus cannot extend beyond that period, and in any event, after a fresh recruitment process has commenced.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that since all selected candidates had joined on post of Technician, there was no occasion to operate a wait list and, thus, the statement made on 15-1-1999 on behalf of the appellants could not be acted upon as it would result in conferring a benefit on a waitlisted candidate to which he otherwise in law was not entitled to. Therefore, the High Court had erred in directing the absorption of the respondent.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of Calcutta High Court in WPCT No.24 of 2021 dated 25.06.2024 (para 18) set aside
• Director of Elementary Education, Odisha v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo 2019 INSC 1092
• The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India [2022] 1 taxmann.com 9484 (SC) (para 16) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Sri Sanjoy Bhattacharjee v. Union of India 1997 INSC 250 (para 9)
• Director of Elementary Education, Odisha v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo 2019 INSC 1092 (para 9)
• Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India [2022] 1 taxmann.com 9484 (SC) (para 9)
• Prem Prakash v. Union of India 1984 INSC 150 (para 10)
• H.P. ST Employees Federation v. H.P.S.V.K.K. [2013] 10 SCC 308 (para 10)
• Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate, In re 2013 INSC 550 (para 10)
• Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation 1993 INSC 154 (para 10)
• Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat 1994 INSC 199 (para 12)
• Uptron India Limited v. Shammi Bhan 1998 taxmann.com 2220 (SC) (para 15)
• Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha v. Dr. K. Santhakumari 2001 INSC 259 (para 16).