Supreme Court Rules Additional List Inclusion Does Not Guarantee Appointment
Date: May 19, 2023
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Chief Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, has held that inclusion in the Additional List (Wait List) of candidates for government teacher recruitment does not automatically confer a right to appointment. The apex court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against a judgment of the High Court, which had directed the appointment of Smt. Bharathi S. to the position of Assistant Teacher based on her inclusion in the Additional List.
The case stemmed from a notification issued by the Department of Public Instructions for the recruitment of Assistant Teachers in a Government Primary School in Chikkaballapur District, Karnataka. The final select list of five candidates was published on January 20, 2016, and the Additional List, comprising only one candidate, Smt. Bharathi S., was released on February 29, 2016.
The State rejected Bharathi’s request for appointment as it fell outside the six-month validity period of the Additional List, as stipulated in the Proceedings of Govt. of Karnataka dated April 11, 2003. The respondent then approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed her application. Subsequently, she filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the State had failed in its obligation to inform Bharathi about the vacancy and had caused delays in filling it. It directed the State to appoint her within three months. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, the State of Karnataka appealed to the Supreme Court.
Delivering the judgment, Chief Justice Chandrachud observed that the Additional List, as per the relevant rules, did not create a right to be appointed. The court emphasized that the decision to fill vacancies from the Additional List rested with the State and was not mandatory. However, the court also clarified that the State’s action must not be arbitrary and would be subject to judicial review.
The Supreme Court held that the Proceedings dated April 11, 2003, which clarified the validity of the Additional List for six months, were applicable in this case. The court underscored that the operation of the Additional List depended on the specified time in the rule, not the knowledge of individual candidates.
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the State of Karnataka’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s directions to appoint Bharathi within three months. The judgment affirms that mere inclusion in the Additional List does not guarantee appointment and clarifies the discretionary power of the State in filling vacancies from the Additional List.
Date of Decision: May 19, 2023
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. vs SMT. BHARATHI S.
