State Bound By Its Concession; More Meritorious Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Supreme Court Balances Equity In Rajasthan Grade III Teacher Recruitment

“Vacancies Mean Posts Actually Available – Not Administrative Excuses”, In a decisive ruling that finally draws the curtain on a decade-long recruitment controversy, the Supreme Court of India held that the State cannot retreat from a concession made before the High Court and must accommodate more meritorious candidates against available vacancies without disturbing earlier appointees.

The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed the Civil Appeals filed by the State and reaffirmed the directions issued in Mukesh Kumar Tailor v. State of Rajasthan. The Court directed preparation of a fresh list of eligible candidates who ranked above the last appointed candidate of the first selection list dated 27.08.2012 but below the cut-off of the revised merit list dated 02.09.2013, and ordered their appointment within a time-bound framework.

The judgment is significant for its interpretation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, its clarification of the expression “vacancies available,” and its firm reminder that governmental concessions before courts are not empty formalities.

Background: Flawed Answer Keys Sparked Years of Litigation

The dispute traces back to the advertisement dated 24.02.2012 for recruitment of 39,544 Grade III Teachers across Rajasthan. The examination was conducted on 02.06.2012 and results were declared on 27.08.2012. However, unsuccessful candidates challenged the process alleging erroneous answer keys.

In Ramdhan Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan, the High Court directed constitution of an Expert Committee to prepare fresh model answer keys and to revise the merit list. Significantly, the State did not challenge this decision. The revision of results disturbed the earlier merit list and led to potential termination of teachers already appointed.

In Manju Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, the High Court protected those already appointed, directing that they “will not be ousted from service” and should, as far as possible, be placed at the bottom of the revised select list.

However, this protection created another anomaly. Several candidates who had secured higher marks in the revised result found that less meritorious candidates were continuing in service. This led to Mukesh Kumar Tailor v. State of Rajasthan, where the State took a “fair stand” before the High Court and conceded that it would work out available vacancies and accommodate candidates who had secured more marks than the last candidate still working pursuant to earlier court orders.

Supreme Court: Concession Once Made Is Binding

Before the Supreme Court, the State attempted to argue that only those above the revised cut-off should be appointed and that earlier directions were limited to protecting existing appointees.

Rejecting this stand, the Court noted that the judgment in Mukesh Kumar Tailor “was based on the concession of the State Government,” and that such concession “has not been either recalled or assailed before any higher forum.”

The Bench further observed that the Government itself had taken a policy decision dated 04.09.2017 to implement the High Court’s directions. In these circumstances, the Court held that the respondents and intervenors, if similarly placed, “cannot be denied the benefit” granted earlier.

The message was clear: the State cannot approbate and reprobate.

“Vacancies Available” Clarified: Posts Unfilled Must Be Counted

A central controversy revolved around the meaning of the phrase “vacancies available.” The State sought a restrictive interpretation to limit appointments.

The Court, drawing from earlier judicial pronouncements, accepted that vacancies include posts which remain unfilled due to non-issuance of appointment letters, candidates not joining, resignations, or other administrative reasons. The availability of substantial vacancies was not disputed before the Court. It was placed on record that approximately 7,500 vacancies existed at various Zila Panchayat levels.

In that backdrop, the Court held that candidates who fall between the last appointed candidate of the first selection list and below the last candidate of the revised merit list “deserve appointment similar to the other persons who have been appointed” in earlier rounds.

Thus, the interpretation of vacancies was grounded in substantive availability, not procedural technicalities.

Equity Balanced: Earlier Appointees Protected, Merit Upheld

The Supreme Court was careful not to disturb teachers already appointed and protected by earlier judicial orders. It reiterated that those appointed under the first selection list and retained pursuant to court directions must continue.

At the same time, it recognized the constitutional mandate of fairness under Articles 14 and 16. More meritorious candidates could not be denied consideration merely because of administrative inertia.

By directing accommodation of eligible candidates against available vacancies without ousting earlier appointees, the Court harmonized competing equities.

Seniority Directions to “Curtail Anticipated Litigation”

One of the most significant aspects of the ruling is its forward-looking approach to seniority. The Court observed that absence of clarity on inter-se seniority could trigger “another round of litigation.”

It therefore directed that inter-se seniority be maintained in terms of the merit of the revised seniority list, with newly appointed candidates placed accordingly at the bottom based on merit. The Court expressly clarified that this direction was issued “with an intent to curtail the anticipated litigation,” while granting liberty to the State to afford opportunity where necessary.

Relief Confined to Litigating Candidates

Importantly, the Court confined the relief to the respondents and intervenors who had approached the Court up to the date of judgment. It declared that the decision was rendered “in the peculiar facts relying the concessions of the State Government” and that “no further avenue would remain open to any of the candidate.”

This ensures finality and prevents reopening of the 2012 recruitment beyond the present litigants.

Conclusion: A Firm Reminder on Fairness and Finality

With the dismissal of the Civil Appeals, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that administrative fairness cannot be diluted once the State itself has conceded a course of action before the Court. The ruling strengthens the principle that merit must prevail where vacancies exist, while also protecting settled appointments to preserve institutional stability.

After fourteen years of litigation stemming from flawed answer keys, the Court has sought to bring closure by balancing constitutional equality, administrative practicality, and judicial consistency.

Date of Decision: 28 January 2026