Appointment from Rank List Must Respect Communal Rotation: SC Declines Claim of SC Waitlisted Candidate After Resignation of Appointee

“The Rank List Remains Valid, But Not at the Cost of Reservation Rotation — Sections 31(10) and 31(11) Must Be Harmoniously Applied” – In a significant judgment delivered on December 18, 2025, in Radhika T. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Ors., the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of a Scheduled Caste candidate who was second in a valid rank list for a reserved post of Associate Professor, holding that her right of appointment could not override the mandate of communal rotation under Section 31(11) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986, even during the currency of the rank list under Section 31(10). The Court emphasized that "the wait list must operate in harmony with the statutory rule of rotation; it cannot override it."

A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria upheld the decision of the Kerala High Court and affirmed the university’s right to assign the vacancy, which arose upon the resignation of the first appointee, to a candidate of a different category as per the roster. The Court clarified that “once a reserved post is fulfilled in form and substance, any subsequent vacancy due to resignation cannot automatically go to the next candidate in the wait list unless the rotation so permits.”

SC Rules Reservation Rotation Trumps Wait List Entitlement

On December 18, 2025, the Supreme Court in Radhika T. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Ors. (Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) Nos. 10079–10080/2025), delivered a crucial ruling on the interplay between a statutory rank list’s validity and the reservation roster under the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986. The appellant, an SC candidate placed second in the rank list, claimed right of appointment after the resignation of the originally appointed SC candidate, Dr. Anitha.

The University declined her claim, stating that the vacancy, though arising within the currency of the two-year rank list (Section 31(10)), fell to a different community under the communal rotation system prescribed in Section 31(11). Upholding the University’s view, the Court emphasized that both provisions must be applied harmoniously, and a rank list cannot be used to “recycle” reservation for the same category unless permitted by the roster.

Resignation of Appointee Rekindles Claim from Waitlisted SC Candidate

The case arose from a 2019 recruitment notification issued by the Cochin University of Science and Technology for the post of Associate Professor in Inorganic Chemistry, reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. After selection, the top-ranked candidate, Dr. Anitha C. Kumar (SC), was appointed on 15.02.2021. The appellant, Radhika T., was placed second in the rank list. The list was statutorily valid for two years under Section 31(10) of the University Act.

Dr. Anitha served for over a year and resigned on 30.03.2022 to join another university. Radhika then sought appointment under the continuing rank list, asserting that the vacancy should go to the next SC candidate.

Initially, the University rejected her claim on the ground that Dr. Anitha still had lien on the post — a contention later quashed by the High Court. Upon reconsideration, the University again rejected Radhika’s claim, this time stating that communal rotation under Section 31(11) applied and the post, now vacant, was to be filled by a candidate from the Latin Catholic/Anglo-Indian (LC/AI) category.

The High Court upheld the University’s decision, holding that the roster system must be followed even during the rank list’s validity. Radhika’s appeals against this interpretation were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Can a Waitlisted Candidate Claim Right to Appointment Within Valid Rank List, If the Vacancy Shifts Category Under Communal Rotation?

The central issue was whether a candidate in a valid rank list (Section 31(10)) for a reserved post is entitled to automatic appointment upon vacancy, even if the reservation roster (Section 31(11)) assigns that post to a different community due to resignation of the original appointee.

Senior Advocate Mr. Mohan Gopal, appearing for the appellant, argued that since the post was originally reserved for the SC category and the rank list remained in force, the next SC candidate (the appellant) must be appointed. He contended that the rule of rotation under Section 31(11) should be suspended until the rank list expires, so as to preserve the benefit of the reservation already earmarked.

On the other hand, counsel for the University, Mr. Pranjal Kishore, argued that no candidate in the rank list has an indefeasible right to appointment. Once a reserved post is filled and the appointee resigns, it becomes a fresh vacancy subject to communal rotation, and cannot be reflexively offered to the next waitlisted candidate unless the roster so requires.

Rank List Validity Does Not Override Reservation Rotation — Vacancy Must Go As Per Roster

The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s argument that communal rotation should be “put on hold” during the rank list’s validity. The Bench held:

"An interpretation that communal rotation could be applied only after expiry of currency of rank list would result in rendering the reservation/rotation requirement prescribed under sub-section (11) entirely otiose during the operational period of the said list, which would defeat the legislative intent behind framing the rotation rule." [Para 5.5.1]

The Court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction, stating that Section 31(10), which provides for the two-year validity of the rank list, and Section 31(11), which mandates communal rotation, are not mutually exclusive. Instead, both must be simultaneously and consistently enforced.

The Court observed:

"While Section 31(10) prescribes the validity period of the rank list, appointments made during this period must continue to adhere to the communal rotation mandated by Section 31(11).” [Para 5.5.2]

Rejecting the idea of “reservation in form” without “substance,” the Bench noted that once an SC candidate was duly appointed, completed probation, and then resigned, the reservation obligation was fulfilled. A fresh vacancy arising post-resignation could not be treated as a continuation of the original SC reservation.

“Reservation not just in form, but must be in substance – Post cannot be recycled for same category,” the Court stated [Para 6.4], affirming that Radhika had no automatic claim to the post under the rank list when the vacancy moved to another community per the roster.

No Vested Right in Wait List – Vacancy Must Correspond With Roster Turn

Drawing from a catena of precedents, including Surender Singh v. State of Punjab, (1997) 8 SCC 488, and Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637, the Court reiterated the principle that a candidate has no vested right to appointment merely by being in the wait list, unless the vacancy arises in the same category and within the operative scope of the list.

The Court clarified:

“The wait list is not a reservoir from which appointments can be made at will. It operates only for a stipulated period, and only for contingencies like non-joining or resignation of the original selectee — and even then, subject to the communal rotation.” [Para 7.4]

The Court also distinguished the appellant’s reliance on the Kerala High Court's ruling in Narayanan v. State of Kerala, noting that in Narayanan, the selected candidate did not even accept appointment — a materially different situation from the present case, where the initial appointee was duly appointed, served, and then resigned. Hence, “the reservation was satisfied both in form and substance.” [Para 6.4]

On Lien: Resignation Ends Substantive Claim to Post — Earlier Rejection of Appellant Based on Lien Was Wrong

The Court also took note of the University’s initial rejection of Radhika’s claim based on the ground that Dr. Anitha retained a lien on the post. The Court found this reasoning entirely erroneous, holding that:

“Lien stands automatically terminated once an employee secures a substantive appointment elsewhere. It was wrong in law to say Dr. Anitha had a lien and deny appointment on that basis.” [Para 5.1.2]

However, since the subsequent rejection was based not on lien but on rotation principles, and upheld by the High Court, no relief was granted to the appellant on that ground.

No Right to Appointment Without Corresponding Roster Turn — Appeals Dismissed

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s orders. It held that Radhika, though ranked second in a valid SC wait list, had no enforceable claim to appointment upon the resignation of Dr. Anitha, as the resultant vacancy was rightly assigned to another community under the statutory rotation.

"The correct construction is that the Rank List continues to be valid for two years, and within this period, every appointment must adhere to the communal rotation mandated by Section 31(11) — provided that the said vacancy stood satisfied in form and substance by the candidate for whom the post was reserved." [Para 5.5.2]

Accordingly, the Cochin University’s assignment of the vacancy to the Latin Catholic/Anglo-Indian category was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

Date of Decision: December 18, 2025