Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has held that enlistment of a candidate's name in the Additional List neither creates a right nor a co-relative obligation for appointment. 

The top court said that the decision to fill all the vacancies from the Additional List, is left to the wisdom of the State, which, however, cannot act arbitrarily and its action will be subject to judicial review.

A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha allowed an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka and set aside the directions of the high court for the appointment of one Bharathi S as an assistant teacher.

The court pointed out that the Rules that govern the services are the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 as amended in 2001. 

"On a close reading of the relevant rule applicable to the services i.e. Entry 66, it is clear that there is no obligation on the State to make appointments. Mere publication of the Additional List does not create any right to be appointed. There is no such mandate in the Rule. Entry 66 of the Rules merely provides that the Selection authority shall prepare and publish an Additional List of candidates not exceeding ten percent of the vacancies and the said list shall cease to operate from the date of publication of notification for subsequent recruitments," the bench said.

Referring to 'Subha B Nair & Ors vs State of Kerala & Ors' (2008) and 'Shankarsan Dash vs Union of India' (1991), the bench said "The duty to fill up vacancies from the Additional List (waiting list) can arise only on the basis of a mandatory rule. In the absence of such a mandate, the decision to fill all the vacancies from the Additional List, is left to the wisdom of the State. We will however add that State cannot act arbitrarily and its action will be subject to judicial review."

The bench said 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 1967 Rule.

"We have seen that the Rule by itself does not create any right. Such a position is also not supported by any principle of law. Finally, the conclusion of the High Court that the Respondent was unaware of the resignation of the appointed candidate will have no bearing on the operation of the Rule. The operation of the Additional List, which is to be published in the official Gazette will depend upon the time specified in the Rule and not as per the knowledge of individual candidate," the bench said.

It also found that the high court committed an error in directing the State to give effect to the Additional List and appoint the respondent within three months from the date of the order.