Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment authored by Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and concurred by Justice P.S. Narasimha, allowed the Union of India’s appeal and set aside the Calcutta High Court’s direction requiring All India Radio (AIR) to absorb a waitlisted Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate as a Technician nearly 25 years after the recruitment process had concluded..
The Court held that the statement made by government counsel in 1999 assuring that the candidate would be considered “in the next available vacancy” could not override statutory recruitment rules. It observed:
“Even a solemn statement made before a court cannot be acted upon if its implementation results in violation of statutory rules or confers an illegal benefit.”
The Court reaffirmed that a waitlisted candidate has no vested right to appointment once all selected candidates have joined and ruled that the High Court erred in directing absorption contrary to recruitment policy.
Facts
In 1997, All India Radio’s Eastern Zone sought to fill three Technician posts reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. The selection committee interviewed 11 candidates and selected three, while placing the respondent first in the reserved (wait) list. The list clearly stated that waitlisted candidates would be considered only if a selected candidate failed to join.
Aggrieved, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the selection process and seeking appointment. During the proceedings, on 15 January 1999, the counsel for AIR made a statement before the Tribunal:
“As soon as a vacancy would arise against the SC quota, the applicant would be absorbed.”
Based on this assurance, the Tribunal passed no further interim orders.
Later, in December 2004, the Tribunal dismissed the original application on merits, holding that the selection process was fair, the allegation of bias baseless, and that a waitlisted candidate has no right to appointment unless a selected candidate fails to join. Yet, relying on the 1999 assurance, the Tribunal directed AIR to consider the respondent’s case in future vacancies within three months.
AIR challenged this direction before the Calcutta High Court, which, in 2009, affirmed the Tribunal’s findings but removed the time restriction, holding that the direction to consider the respondent “would survive till a vacancy arose.”
In 2013, when Prasar Bharati issued a new advertisement for Technician posts, the respondent again moved the Tribunal seeking absorption based on the 1999 assurance. Interim protection was granted to keep one post vacant under the SC category.
However, a speaking order of February 2016 rejected his claim, noting that all vacancies from 1997 had been filled, no new SC vacancy existed, and the respondent had crossed the upper age limit under recruitment rules. The Tribunal later directed AIR to issue a fresh speaking order on vacancies arising after 2015, which was again challenged before the High Court in 2021.
The High Court’s Division Bench, on 25 June 2024, found that AIR had not honoured its 1999 assurance despite available vacancies. It directed absorption of the respondent with notional benefits from 19 July 2013, terming rejection on age grounds illegal. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether a waitlisted candidate can claim appointment after the recruitment process has ended.
- Whether a statement or assurance given by government counsel before the Tribunal can override statutory recruitment rules.
- Whether the High Court erred in directing absorption contrary to recruitment policy and expiry of the selection list.
Petitioner’s (Union of India) Arguments
Counsel for the Union argued that the respondent’s inclusion in the reserved panel conferred no right to appointment since all selected candidates had joined in 1997. The panel automatically expired thereafter, and the right to be considered ceased with the completion of recruitment.
It was contended that the statement made in 1999 could not bind the government because it was contrary to recruitment rules and amounted to a legal concession that could not override statutory obligations. Implementing it would require the government to disregard recruitment rules, which was impermissible.
Reliance was placed on:
- Director of Elementary Education, Odisha v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo (2019 INSC 1092) — holding that concessions inconsistent with recruitment law cannot confer rights.
- Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India (2022 INSC 77) — clarifying that public employment must strictly follow statutory rules.
- Sri Sanjoy Bhattacharjee v. Union of India (1997 INSC 250) — reiterating that waitlisted candidates have no enforceable right to appointment once the list expires.
The Union emphasized that if such concessions were enforced, a candidate from a 1997 recruitment could unjustly occupy a post in 2024, depriving new eligible candidates.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent contended that AIR, as a model employer, was bound by its 1999 assurance recorded before the Tribunal. Since vacancies in the SC quota later arose, the authorities were under a duty to honour their commitment. The subsequent refusal amounted to acting contrary to their own undertaking and violated Article 14.
It was submitted that age-bar arguments were a later afterthought since the respondent’s eligibility was accepted in 1999. The respondent relied on:
- Prem Prakash v. Union of India (1984 INSC 150) — holding that administrative authorities must act fairly and honour commitments.
- H.P. State Transport Employees Federation v. H.P.S.V.K.K. (2013) 10 SCC 308 — reiterating the obligation of public employers to act consistently.
- Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993 INSC 154) — emphasizing fairness and legitimate expectation in public employment.
The respondent argued that vacancies were kept open under interim protection from 2013 onwards, and hence, the right crystallized. Denying absorption, he said, would allow the government to benefit from its own wrong.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court reiterated settled law on waitlisted candidates, observing that:
“Mere placement in a waitlist does not create any vested right to appointment. The right arises only if a selected candidate fails to join and the waitlist remains operative.”
Referring to the three-judge bench decision in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat (1994 INSC 199), the Court quoted:
“A waiting list cannot become an infinite source of recruitment. If such lists are perpetuated, it would defeat constitutional discipline and deprive new candidates of opportunity.”
Thus, once all selected candidates had joined in 1997, no right survived for the respondent to claim future appointment.
The Court further examined whether the 1999 statement by government counsel could bind the authorities. It held that a wrong concession on a point of law cannot be enforced if its implementation violates statutory rules or recruitment policy.
Citing Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan (1998 INSC 74) and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha v. K. Santhakumari (2001 INSC 259), the Court reiterated:
“A concession or admission made under a mistaken impression of law is not binding on the client and cannot constitute a precedent.”
Hence, even if the assurance was made in good faith, enforcing it would mean appointing a candidate outside the valid selection process, which is impermissible under Articles 14 and 16.
Precedent Analysis
- Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat (1994 INSC 199):
Held that a waiting list is not a recruitment source and expires once posts are filled. - Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan (1998 INSC 74):
Established that an erroneous legal concession by counsel is not binding on the client. - Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha v. K. Santhakumari (2001 INSC 259):
Affirmed that concessions contrary to law cannot confer enforceable rights. - Director of Elementary Education v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo (2019 INSC 1092) and ESI Corporation v. Union of India (2022 INSC 77):
Reaffirmed that public appointments must comply strictly with recruitment rules and not with informal promises.
These cases collectively underscored that administrative fairness must coexist with statutory compliance, and courts cannot direct appointments that bypass established rules.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench held that implementing the 1999 assurance would illegally extend the life of a 1997 waitlist, thereby prejudicing future aspirants. The High Court erred in ignoring that the recruitment process had long concluded, and no post remained vacant.
It emphasized:
“A statement before the court carries solemnity, but if enforcing it leads to violation of statutory rules, the authority is entitled to place before the court the correct position in law.”
The Court found that the High Court had “glossed over vital aspects,” particularly that the respondent had no subsisting right and that subsequent vacancies must be filled through fresh recruitment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order dated 25 June 2024, holding it unsustainable in law. It ruled:
“The High Court erred in directing absorption of a waitlisted candidate after the recruitment process had concluded. The government’s concession cannot override recruitment rules.”
The appeal was allowed, and the respondent’s writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Implications
- Reinforces that waitlists are not perpetual recruitment sources.
- Establishes that a concession contrary to law cannot bind the government.
- Prevents misuse of judicial assurances that would bypass recruitment rules.
- Ensures fair opportunity for future aspirants under Articles 14 and 16.
- Clarifies the scope of legitimate expectation — it cannot exist against statutory provisions.
