State of Karnataka v. Santhosh Kumar
“Inclusion in a Select List Does Not Confer an Indefeasible Right to Appointment”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court allowed the State of Karnataka's appeal and held that an ex-serviceman candidate who was placed next in the select list could not claim appointment to a post left unfilled because the originally selected candidate did not undergo mandatory medical examination or report for duty. The Court ruled that the 1997 Karnataka Recruitment Rules do not provide for any reserve list, waiting list, or additional list, and that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. A vacancy arising from non-joining must be treated as a fresh vacancy to be filled through subsequent recruitment.
The Bottom Line
Being on a government select list does not guarantee you a job. If the person selected above you does not join, you cannot automatically claim that post. The governing recruitment rules must expressly provide for such substitution. Without such a provision, the vacancy must be filled through a fresh recruitment process.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
KPSC Recruitment Notification Issued
KPSC issued notification inviting applications for 362 posts of Karnataka Gazetted Probationers in Group A and Group B Services under the 1997 Rules.
KPSC Recruitment Notification Issued
KPSC issued notification inviting applications for 362 posts of Karnataka Gazetted Probationers in Group A and Group B Services under the 1997 Rules.
Final Select List Published
KPSC published the final select list. Sri Aiyappa M.A. was selected for Assistant Commissioner, KAS, Group A (GM/Ex-MP category). Respondent Santhosh Kumar was selected for Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Group A.
Final Select List Published
KPSC published the final select list. Sri Aiyappa M.A. was selected for Assistant Commissioner, KAS, Group A (GM/Ex-MP category). Respondent Santhosh Kumar was selected for Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Group A.
Respondent Appointed to Commercial Taxes Post
Respondent was appointed as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Group A, by notification and joined duty on 09.05.2022.
Respondent Appointed to Commercial Taxes Post
Respondent was appointed as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Group A, by notification and joined duty on 09.05.2022.
Respondent Files Representation to DPAR
Respondent submitted representation claiming that since Sri Aiyappa M.A. had not joined, the KAS post under GM/Ex-MP category should be offered to him as the next candidate.
Respondent Files Representation to DPAR
Respondent submitted representation claiming that since Sri Aiyappa M.A. had not joined, the KAS post under GM/Ex-MP category should be offered to him as the next candidate.
DPAR Rejects Respondent's Request
DPAR rejected the representation, stating that the 1997 Rules did not provide for an additional select list and the unfilled post must be treated as a fresh vacancy.
DPAR Rejects Respondent's Request
DPAR rejected the representation, stating that the 1997 Rules did not provide for an additional select list and the unfilled post must be treated as a fresh vacancy.
Tribunal Dismisses Application
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the respondent's application, upholding DPAR's position that no additional select list was permissible under the 1997 Rules.
Tribunal Dismisses Application
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the respondent's application, upholding DPAR's position that no additional select list was permissible under the 1997 Rules.
High Court Allows Writ Petition
High Court of Karnataka allowed the respondent's writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's order and DPAR's communication, and directed the State to consider the respondent for the KAS post.
High Court Allows Writ Petition
High Court of Karnataka allowed the respondent's writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's order and DPAR's communication, and directed the State to consider the respondent for the KAS post.
Supreme Court Allows State's Appeal
Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the Tribunal's order, and held that the respondent had no right to claim appointment to the unfilled post under the 1997 Rules.
Supreme Court Allows State's Appeal
Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the Tribunal's order, and held that the respondent had no right to claim appointment to the unfilled post under the 1997 Rules.
The Story
The Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) issued a notification dated 03.11.2011 inviting applications for recruitment to 362 posts of Karnataka Gazetted Probationers in Group A and Group B Services under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 (the "1997 Rules").
The respondent Santhosh Kumar C, an ex-serviceman, participated in the selection process. The KPSC published the final select list on 21.03.2014. In the General Merit Ex-Military Person (GM/Ex-MP) category, one Sri Aiyappa M.A. was selected for the post of Assistant Commissioner, Karnataka Administrative Service, Group A, Junior Scale. The respondent was not selected for that post but was selected for the post of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Group A, pursuant to the same recruitment.
Sri Aiyappa M.A. did not undergo the mandatory medical examination or police verification and did not report for duty. The respondent, on the other hand, was appointed as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Group A, by notification dated 05.05.2022 and joined duty on 09.05.2022.
On 26.05.2022, the respondent submitted a representation to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR), claiming that since Sri Aiyappa M.A. had not joined, the post of Assistant Commissioner, KAS, Group A, Junior Scale, under the GM/Ex-MP category remained unfilled and ought to be offered to him as the candidate immediately next below in the selection.
By communication dated 27.06.2022, DPAR rejected the respondent's request, stating that under the 1997 Rules there was no provision for preparation of an additional select list and that a post left unfilled on account of non-reporting by a selected candidate was required to be treated as a fresh vacancy to be filled in a subsequent recruitment.
The respondent filed Application No. 4990 of 2022 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (the "Tribunal") under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Tribunal dismissed the application on 13.10.2023, holding that there was no provision under the 1997 Rules for preparing an additional select list and that such a vacancy had to be treated as a fresh one.
The respondent challenged the Tribunal's order before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru by filing Writ Petition No. 24455 of 2023 (S-KSAT). By judgment dated 21.04.2025, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside both the Tribunal's order and DPAR's communication, and directed the State to consider the respondent for appointment to the post in question.
Aggrieved, the State of Karnataka and its authorities appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
The 1997 Rules do not provide for a reserve list, waiting list, or additional list
The State contended that Rule 11 of the 1997 Rules requires preparation of select lists equal to the number of available vacancies. The Rules contain no provision enabling the State to revert to the same list to fill a post left unfilled due to non-joining. Such a vacancy must be treated as a fresh vacancy to be filled through subsequent recruitment.
Mere inclusion in the select list does not confer a right to appointment
The appellants argued that under settled law, inclusion in a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. Appointment remains subject to the satisfaction of the Government regarding suitability after enquiry and verification as provided in Rule 11(3).
The Validation Act of 2022 reinforces finality of the 2011 selection
The Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 validates the selection and mandates appointment orders as per the KPSC selection list, underscoring legislative intent to attach finality to the process.
Respondent
State of Haryana
The vacancy continued to remain unfilled and should go to the next candidate
The respondent argued that since Sri Aiyappa M.A. did not even undergo the mandatory medical examination, the post of Assistant Commissioner, KAS, Group A, Junior Scale, under the GM/Ex-MP category continued to remain unfilled. As the candidate immediately next below, the respondent claimed entitlement to be considered for appointment to that post.
The respondent had indicated preference for the post in question
The respondent contended that he had indicated his preference for the post of Assistant Commissioner, KAS, and since the selected candidate did not join, the vacancy should automatically pass to him as the next candidate in the merit order who had expressed preference for that service.
Rule 11(3) does not apply because the Government had already decided to appoint
The respondent sought to argue that the principle of no indefeasible right from a select list did not apply because the Government had already decided to fill the notified vacancies and make appointments, thereby distinguishing this case from situations where the Government chose not to fill posts at all.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court conducted a careful analysis of the 1997 Karnataka Recruitment Rules and held that the scheme is one of recruitment against notified vacancies, not an open-ended reservoir of candidates. Rule 4(3) requires candidates to indicate their service preferences, and Rule 11 mandates preparation of separate lists equal to the number of available vacancies for each service. The Rules do not provide for any reserve list, waiting list, or additional list, nor do they contain any provision enabling the State to revert to the same select list to fill a post left unfilled due to non-joining. The Court found that the High Court erred by conflating the factual existence of an unfilled post with the legal question of the permissible mode of filling it. Even assuming the post remained vacant, the question was whether the 1997 Rules permitted the same select list to be operated for filling such post -- and they did not. The Court further noted that the respondent's claim was not one of total non-selection but rather a claim to appointment to another post, and that there were other candidates above the respondent who had also expressed preference for the same post, making the claim far from automatic or self-evident.
The list contemplated by Rule 11 is not an open-ended reservoir of candidates, but a service-wise list prepared equal to the number of available vacancies and meant to operate in respect of the vacancies notified in that recruitment itself.
Central holding distinguishing finite, vacancy-specific select lists from open-ended merit lists or waiting lists that can be drawn upon for future vacancies.
Inclusion of a candidate's name in a select list does not by itself confer an indefeasible right to appointment. A select list makes a candidate eligible for consideration in accordance with the governing rules. It does not create a vested right to claim appointment dehors the statutory framework.
Reiterates the fundamental principle from Shankarsan Dash that no right to appointment arises from mere inclusion in a select list unless the rules expressly so provide.
The 1997 Rules do not provide for any reserve list, waiting list, or additional list. Nor do they contain any provision enabling the State to revert to the same list and travel further downward to fill a post left unfilled on account of non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining by a selected candidate.
Establishes that absent an express statutory provision for a waiting or additional list, the State cannot operate a select list beyond its intended scope.
This approach conflates the factual existence of an unfilled post with the legal question as to the permissible mode of filling it.
Identifies the High Court's critical error in reasoning -- the existence of a vacancy does not automatically determine who is entitled to fill it or how it should be filled.
Any such post facto adjustment would risk unsettling a service-wise and preference-based allocation exercise which had already attained finality.
Highlights the practical difficulty in allowing substitution in multi-service recruitment: it could destabilize the entire allocation framework.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The State of Karnataka's appeal was allowed. The High Court's direction to consider the respondent for appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner, KAS, Group A, Junior Scale, was set aside. The Tribunal's order upholding DPAR's rejection of the respondent's claim was restored.
Directions Issued
- The judgment and order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Karnataka is set aside
- The writ petition filed by the respondent (Writ Petition No. 24455 of 2023, S-KSAT) stands dismissed
- The order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Tribunal and the communication dated 27.06.2022 issued by DPAR are restored
- Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
Key Legal Principles Established
Inclusion of a candidate's name in a select list does not by itself confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
A select list prepared under recruitment rules that do not provide for a reserve, waiting, or additional list cannot be operated beyond the vacancies notified in that recruitment.
A vacancy arising from non-joining by a selected candidate must be treated as a fresh vacancy if the governing rules do not expressly permit substitution from the same select list.
Appointments must conform to the notified vacancies and the governing rules; a select list cannot be operated in a manner not contemplated by the statutory scheme.
In multi-service recruitment processes, post-facto adjustment of candidates across posts risks unsettling the finality of service-wise and preference-based allocation.
The factual existence of an unfilled post must not be conflated with the legal question of the permissible mode of filling it.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- Clearing a government exam and being on the select list does not guarantee you will get a specific post. Your right to appointment depends on what the recruitment rules actually say.
- If the person selected above you does not join, you cannot automatically claim that post unless the recruitment rules specifically provide for a waiting list or reserve list.
- A vacancy left unfilled because the selected candidate did not join is treated as a fresh vacancy to be filled through a new recruitment cycle, not automatically given to the next person.
- Even if you indicated preference for a particular post in your application form, that does not create a right to be appointed to that post if the selected candidate does not join.
- Different government recruitment schemes have different rules. Always check whether the specific rules governing your recruitment provide for a waiting list or additional list.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 14
Constitution of India
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Relevance: Underlying constitutional principle governing fairness in public employment. The Court's ruling ensures that select lists are operated within the bounds of the governing rules, preventing arbitrary appointment claims.
Article 16
Constitution of India
“There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”
Relevance: The principle of equal opportunity requires that appointments follow the prescribed recruitment rules. Allowing substitution not contemplated by the rules would violate this principle by bypassing the structured selection process.
Statutory Provisions
Rule 4, Sub-rule (3)
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997
“The candidates who apply for the competitive examinations shall clearly indicate in their application forms the services or posts for which they wish to be considered for appointment in the order of preference. They shall not be considered for such of the service or posts which are not preferred by them.”
Relevance: Core provision establishing the preference-based allocation system. The Court relied on this to hold that the recruitment was service-specific, not a single linear progression.
Rule 11
Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997
“List of candidates suitable for appointment. (1) The Commission shall prepare separate list of names of candidates equal to the available number of vacancies considered suitable for appointment for each of the said services in Group A and Group B arranged in order of merit. (3) Candidates whose names are included in the list shall be considered for appointment to the vacancies notified in each of the services and groups of posts in the order in which their names appear in the list.”
Relevance: The central provision. The Court interpreted Rule 11(1) and 11(3) together to hold that the select list is finite, vacancy-specific, and does not contemplate a reserve or additional list.
Section 19
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
“Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals in relation to service matters.”
Relevance: The respondent initially approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal under this provision to challenge DPAR's rejection of his appointment claim.
Section 3
Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022
“Validates the selection of the 2011 batch Gazetted Probationers made by the KPSC and mandates issuance of appointment orders as per the KPSC selection list.”
Relevance: The Court noted this Act as reinforcing legislative intent to attach finality to the 2011 selection and appointments as made in accordance with the KPSC selection list, which was inconsistent with reopening the process.
Related Cases & Precedents
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India
followed(1991) 3 SCC 47
Landmark judgment holding that even where vacancies exist, a candidate whose name appears in a select list does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment, unless the relevant rules so indicate. Applied as the primary authority.
Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi
followed(2010) 2 SCC 637
Held that appointments must conform to the notified vacancies and the governing rules, and that a select list cannot be operated in a manner not contemplated by the statutory scheme.
State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda
followed(2010) 6 SCC 777
Held that appointments must conform to notified vacancies and governing rules. A select list cannot be operated beyond the statutory framework.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
2023 INSC 783
The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages
Supriyo v. Union of India
2023 INSC 920
The Landmark Case That Defined Marriage Equality in India
Deepika Singh v. CAT
2022 INSC 745
Redefining Family: Step-Children and the Right to Maternity Leave
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.