Waitlist Cannot Be Treated as a Lifelong Source of Appointment to SC Quota: Supreme Court

“Recruitment must follow law, not sentiment….Statement Made by Counsel Cannot Override Recruitment Rules” – Apex Court Denies Relief to 1997 Waitlist Candidate Claiming SC Quota Post in 2025. In a powerful reaffirmation of legal discipline in public employment, the Supreme Court of India Today on October 15, 2025, quashed a Calcutta High Court order that had directed the Union to absorb a 1997 waitlisted candidate on a technical post in All India Radio, over 25 years later, based solely on a statement made before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 1999.

The Court declared that “mere placement in a waitlist does not create any vested right for appointment, nor can a concession made by government counsel in court be allowed to override statutory recruitment rules.”

“Any right the respondent could claim as a waitlisted candidate extinguished when all the selected candidates joined their respective posts” – Supreme Court

Delivering a 22-page judgment, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha held that legal concessions made in court proceedings must be subservient to law, and Recruitment Rules cannot be bypassed by executive assurances, even if recorded judicially.

Introduction

On October 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India allowed a civil appeal in Union of India & Ors. v. Subit Kumar Das, arising out of a Calcutta High Court judgment dated 25.06.2024. The Court reversed the High Court’s direction to appoint the respondent to the post of Technician in the SC category in the Eastern Zone of All India Radio, holding such relief to be “legally unsustainable” as it conflicted with established principles of public recruitment and statutory Recruitment Rules.

The case originated from a 1997 recruitment process, where three SC-reserved posts of Technician were advertised. Subit Kumar Das was interviewed but placed at Serial No.1 in the Reserved (Wait) Panel, to be considered only if any of the three selected candidates failed to join. All selected candidates joined, rendering the waitlist redundant.

Aggrieved, Subit Kumar approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his challenge in 2004, but based on a 1999 statement made by the government’s counsel during interim proceedings – promising to absorb the respondent against any future SC vacancy – the Tribunal directed the authorities to consider his case.

Over the next two decades, further rounds of litigation followed, with fresh applications in 2013 and 2016. Finally, the Calcutta High Court in 2024 directed his appointment with notional effect from 2013, holding the Union to its earlier 1999 assurance.

The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were:

• Whether a waitlisted candidate from 1997 could claim a vested right of appointment decades later, when all original vacancies had been filled;

• Whether a statement made by Government Counsel in 1999, expressing intent to absorb the candidate in future vacancies, could override statutory Recruitment Rules and bind the State indefinitely;

• Whether denying appointment on the ground of overage was legal, when the delay was due to prolonged litigation.

The Union of India argued that allowing such an appointment would violate recruitment sanctity, deprive future eligible candidates, and permit a waitlist to exist eternally. The respondent claimed that the 1999 statement was a binding assurance, which created a legitimate expectation that had to be honoured.

Court’s Ruling: Waitlist Ends When Posts Are Filled

The Supreme Court categorically held that Subit Kumar Das had no enforceable right to appointment once the selected candidates joined. The Court emphasized:

“The wait list operates for a limited period. It cannot extend for an indefinite period and in any event after a fresh process of recruitment has commenced.”

Referring to Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat (1994 INSC 199), the Court warned against treating waitlists as "infinite stock for appointments," stating:

“This practice may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future.”

On Statement by Government Counsel: “Wrong Concession on Law Not Binding”

The Court also dealt extensively with the binding nature of a statement made in 1999 by government counsel before the Tribunal, where it was stated that the respondent “would be absorbed” against a future SC vacancy.

The Court ruled: “Even otherwise, a wrong concession on a question of law, made by a counsel, is not binding on his client. Such concession cannot constitute a just ground for a binding precedent.”

Referring to Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan (1998 INSC 74) and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda v. Dr. K. Santhakumari (2001 INSC 259), the Court held that statements contrary to statutory rules are not enforceable, even if made in court, observing:

“Giving effect to such statement made on 15.01.1999 would result in a waitlisted candidate being given an appointment… which would amount to filling in one post in the subsequent recruitment on the basis of an exercise carried out in the previous recruitment.”

The Court found that the High Court’s directive would result in artificially extending the life of a waitlist, thereby infringing upon the rights of future candidates under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Absorption Would Violate Recruitment Rules

Rejecting the High Court’s direction that Das be appointed retrospectively from 2013, the Supreme Court noted that such a relief would necessitate ignoring recruitment rules on age, qualification, and selection procedure, none of which could be waived merely by administrative assurance:

“The effect of such a statement cannot result in wiping out the adjudication of the respondent’s claim on merits.”

It reiterated that "a model employer" cannot be compelled to violate statutory norms, even in equity.

The Court concluded: “The available vacancies having been filled up in 1997 resulted in exhaustion of the wait list and the said process of recruitment had come to an end.”

It held that the Calcutta High Court erred in treating the 1999 statement as enforceable law, and directed that:

“The judgment of the High Court dated 25.06.2024 in WPCT No.24 of 2021 is found to be unsustainable in law. It is accordingly set-aside and the writ petition preferred by the respondent stands dismissed.”

This judgment draws a sharp line between judicial promises and legal entitlements. It reminds all stakeholders that statutory recruitment cannot be overridden by misplaced compassion, mistaken statements, or judicial indulgence.

Date of Decision: October 15, 2025