Supreme Court: Waiting List Is NOT a Ticket to a Government Job

A recruitment exercise for the post of Technician (1997) had three vacancies reserved for the SC quota. A Selection Committee interviewed eleven candidates and selected three in order of merit; the respondent was placed at Serial No.1 in the reserved/wait panel. The respondent challenged the selection before the Central Administrative Tribunal; during interim proceedings a statement was recorded on 15.01.1999 on behalf of the employer that the respondent would be considered for absorption when a vacancy against the SC quota arose. On 09.12.2004, the Tribunal declined relief on merits but directed that the respondent be considered in terms of the recorded assurance; the High Court modified the time-limit aspect but left the direction intact.

Thereafter, fresh recruitment was notified (23.02.2013), and further proceedings followed. By interim order dated 19.07.2013 one post was directed to be kept vacant pending consideration; a speaking order of the Deputy Director General dated 19.02.2016 recorded that the 1997 vacancies were filled as per the select list, that no SC vacancy was available and that the respondent was age-barred under Recruitment Rules. The respondent pursued further Tribunal and High Court remedies; the Division Bench ultimately directed absorption with notional effect from 19.07.2013. The Union appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue Raised: Whether a candidate placed on the reserved-panel (wait list) from a concluded recruitment exercise can be absorbed years later on the basis of a prior courtroom assurance, when such absorption would violate recruitment rules and prejudice fresh recruitment.

SC Decided: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s direction. The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that mere placement on a waiting list does not create a vested right to appointment; the wait list operates only for the contingency that a selected candidate does not join; it cannot be treated as an inexhaustible source of recruitment once the vacancies are filled and a fresh recruitment process is commenced. Giving effect to the 1999 statement would amount to filling posts in subsequent recruitments on the basis of an earlier select list, thereby reducing vacancies for fresh candidates and impermissibly extending the life of an exhausted wait list.

The Court further held that a concession or statement made on behalf of a party does not bind the State to act in breach of statutory Recruitment Rules. If the legal consequence of a recorded concession would be to contravene rules or to confer an impermissible advantage, the affected party may place the correct legal position before the Court. Applying these principles, the court concluded that the High Court erred in directing absorption; the writ petition was dismissed and the civil appeal allowed with no costs.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below