In Civil Appeal 3062 of 2023 - SC-  Enlistment of name in Wait List neither creates a right nor a co-relative obligation for appointment to post, says Supreme Court
Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud & Justice PS Narasimha [19-05-2023]

Read Order: State of Karnataka v Bharathi S.

Simran Singh

New Delhi, May 20, 2023: In a civil appeal by the State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court has set aside the directions of the Karnataka High Court appointing the respondent to the post of Assistant Teacher, as her name appears in the Additional List (Wait List) of candidates. The Top Court held that enlistment of name in the Additional List neither creates a right nor a co-relative obligation for appointment.

“Having considered the rules and the principles that govern the services, we have held that enlistment of name in the Additional List neither creates a right nor a co-relative obligation for appointment. For reasons that follow, we have allowed the appeal filed by the State and set aside the directions of the High Court,”said a bench of Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha.

In the matter at hand, the order passed by the Karnataka High Court directing appointment of the Respondent to the post of Assistant Teacher, as her name appears in the Additional List (Wait List) of candidates was brought into question.

The Court opined that the High Court had committed an error in assuming the existence of a right to be appointed on the basis of Entry 66 in the Schedule to the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 (‘Rules of 1967’). The  Rule of 1967 by itself does not create any right nor such a position is supported by any principle of law.

The operation of the Additional List, which was to be published in the official Gazette would depend upon the time specified in the Rule of 1967 and not as per the knowledge of individual candidates.

The Bench in conclusion stated that the High Court committed an error in directing the State to give effect to the Additional List and appoint the respondent within 3 months from the date of the order. With the above observation, the impugned order of the High Court was set aside.