The Supreme Court has ruled that a candidate cannot claim appointment to a government post merely because a selected candidate failed to complete pre-appointment formalities or did not join duty, in the absence of a statutory provision permitting such substitution.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the State’s appeal and set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order that had directed consideration of a candidate for appointment to a higher post.
The dispute arose from the 2011 recruitment conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) for Gazetted Probationers in Group A and Group B services. The respondent, an ex-serviceman, participated in the selection process and was ultimately appointed as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in 2022.
However, one candidate selected for the post of Assistant Commissioner in the Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS) did not undergo mandatory medical examination, police verification, or join duty. The respondent, being next in merit within the relevant category and having indicated preference for the post, claimed that the vacancy should be offered to him.
The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) rejected his request, stating that under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers Rules, 1997, there was no provision for a waiting list and such vacancies must be treated as fresh and filled through subsequent recruitment.
The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal upheld the State’s position and dismissed the respondent’s application. It ruled that the governing rules did not allow operation of the select list beyond the notified vacancies.
However, the Karnataka High Court reversed this decision. It held that since the selected candidate had not even completed mandatory pre-appointment procedures, the vacancy remained unfilled and should be offered to the next eligible candidate. Accordingly, it directed the State to consider the respondent for appointment.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court and restored the Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing the statutory framework governing the recruitment process.
The Court held that the 1997 Rules provide for preparation of select lists strictly equal to the number of notified vacancies, and not beyond. There is no provision for a reserve list, waiting list, or additional list. A vacancy arising due to non-joining or non-completion of formalities cannot be filled by moving down the same select list unless expressly permitted by the rules.
The Court clarified that a select list is not an “open-ended reservoir” of candidates and cannot be operated indefinitely.
The Court observed that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. It only gives a candidate the right to be considered in accordance with the governing rules.
The bench noted that the respondent had already been selected and appointed to another Group A post under the same recruitment process. His claim was not of denial of opportunity but of seeking a different post based on a vacancy arising later, which is not permissible under the rules.
The Court emphasized that the recruitment process involved multiple services with candidates indicating preferences. The allocation was service-specific and based on merit and preference. Allowing post-selection adjustments would disrupt the finalized allocation process.
It further observed that even if a post remains vacant in fact, the critical legal question is whether the rules permit filling it through the same selection process—which, in this case, they did not.
The Court also referred to the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022, which validated the selection process and underscored the legislative intent to attach finality to appointments made under the 2011 recruitment.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the respondent’s writ petition. It upheld the State’s position that such vacancies must be treated as fresh and filled through a new recruitment process.
Case Details
Case Title: State Of Karnataka & Ors. Versus Santhosh Kumar C
Citation: JURISHOUR-263-SC-2026
Case No.: SLP (C) No.35896 of 2025
Date: 23/03/2026
