State of Karnataka & Orsv.Santhosh Kumar C

Synopsis

This judgment addresses the scope of a candidate’s right to claim appointment from a select list when a selected candidate fails to join or complete pre‑appointment formalities. The respondent, an ex‑serviceman, was selected and appointed as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under a 2011 recruitment process. He later claimed that he should have been appointed to a different post (Assistant Commissioner, Karnataka Administrative Service) because the originally selected candidate for that post had not joined. The High Court allowed his claim, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment and that the governing rules (Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers Rules, 1997) did not provide for a waiting list or for filling a vacancy left by a non‑joining candidate from the same select list. The Court emphasised that the statutory scheme must be strictly followed and that vacancies arising after the finalisation of the select list must be filled through a fresh recruitment process.

2. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Santhosh Kumar C

Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35896 of 2025 (converted to Civil Appeal No. of 2026)

Bench/Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and another learned judge (name not specified in the extract)

Judgment Author: Justice Vikram Nath

Date of Decision: March 23, 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 276

Appeal From: Judgment and order dated 21.04.2025 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 24455 of 2023 (S‑KSAT), which had set aside the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

3. Legal Framework

This judgment primarily involves the interpretation of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997, and the settled principles governing selection lists and appointment rights.

A. Key Provisions of Law:

• Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 (1997 Rules):
  Rule 4(3): Candidates must indicate their order of preference for the services/posts they wish to be considered for. They shall not be considered for services/posts not preferred.
  Rule 11: Deals with the list of candidates suitable for appointment.
  Rule 11(1): The Commission shall prepare separate lists of names equal to the number of available vacancies for each service/group, arranged in order of merit. The proviso states that a candidate’s name shall not be included in more than one such list.
  Rule 11(2): The list shall be published in the Official Gazette and forwarded to the Government.
  Rule 11(3): Candidates whose names are included in the list shall be considered for appointment to the notified vacancies in the order of their names. The proviso makes appointment subject to verification and satisfaction of the Government regarding suitability.
  The Rules do not provide for a reserve list, waiting list, or any mechanism to fill a vacancy arising after the finalisation of the select list from the same list.

• Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 (Validation Act):
  Section 3: Validates the selection of the 2011 batch Gazetted Probationers made by the KPSC and mandates issuance of appointment orders as per the KPSC selection list. It also bars suits or proceedings for review of such appointments.

B. Related Precedents (Discussed in the Judgment):

• Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47: This Court held that even where vacancies exist, a candidate whose name appears in the select list does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment, unless the relevant rules so indicate.

• Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi (2017) 8 SCC 426: Reiterated that appointments must conform to the notified vacancies and the governing rules, and that a select list cannot be operated in a manner not contemplated by the statutory scheme.

• State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda (2011) 11 SCC 520: Affirmed that the existence of a select list does not create a vested right to appointment.

4. Relevant Facts of the Case

1. Recruitment Notification (2011): The Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) issued a notification on 03.11.2011 for 362 posts of Karnataka Gazetted Probationers in Group A and Group B Services under the 1997 Rules.

2. Selection and Appointment: The respondent, an ex‑serviceman, participated. The final select list was published on 21.03.2014. In the General Merit Ex‑Military Personnel (GM/Ex‑MP) category, one Sri Aiyappa M.A. was selected to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS), Group A, Junior Scale. The respondent was not selected to that post, but was selected and later appointed as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Group A, by notification dated 05.05.2022, joining on 09.05.2022.

3. Vacancy Arises: Sri Aiyappa M.A. did not undergo mandatory medical examination, police verification, or report for duty.

4. Respondent’s Claim: On 26.05.2022, the respondent sought that the unfilled post of Assistant Commissioner (KAS) be offered to him as the next candidate below the selected candidate.

5. Rejection by Government: The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) rejected the request on 27.06.2022, stating that under the 1997 Rules there was no provision for an additional select list and the vacancy must be treated as a fresh vacancy for a subsequent recruitment.

6. Tribunal’s Order: The respondent filed an application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed it on 13.10.2023, upholding the government’s stand.

7. High Court’s Order: On writ petition, the High Court allowed the respondent’s claim on 21.04.2025, holding that the vacancy remained unfilled, Rule 11(3) was not attracted, and directed consideration of the respondent for the KAS post.

8. Appeal to Supreme Court: The State appealed.

5. Issues Identified by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

Whether the respondent, who was selected and appointed to one post under the same recruitment, could claim appointment to a different post from the same select list on the ground that the selected candidate for that post did not complete pre‑appointment formalities or join, in the absence of any provision in the 1997 Rules for a waiting list or for filling such vacancies from the same list.

6. Ratio Decidendi (The Reasoning and Decision of the Court)

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment. The reasoning is as follows:

• Scheme of the 1997 Rules: The Court analysed Rule 4(3) and Rule 11 of the 1997 Rules. It held that the scheme is one of recruitment against notified vacancies, with service‑wise lists prepared equal to the number of vacancies. The Rules do not provide for any reserve list, waiting list, or additional list. The list is meant to operate only for the notified vacancies in that recruitment.

• No Right to Appointment from Select List: Relying on Shankarsan Dash, the Court reiterated that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. It only makes the candidate eligible for consideration in accordance with the rules. The right, if any, must arise from the statutory framework, not from mere inclusion.

• Rule 11(3) Does Not Enable Substitution: The High Court had held that Rule 11(3) was not attracted. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Rule 11(3), read with Rule 11(1) and Rule 4(3), delineates the scope of the select list. Once the final list is prepared and appointments made, the process attains finality. A vacancy arising due to non‑joining of a selected candidate cannot be filled by operating the same list in the absence of a specific provision.

• Preference‑Based Allocation: The recruitment was to multiple services, and candidates were required to indicate their order of preference. The KPSC prepared separate lists for each service. The respondent had already been appointed to one post (Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) for which he was selected. Claiming a different post would unsettle the preference‑based allocation exercise.

• Legislative Finality – Validation Act: The Court noted that the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 validates the 2011 selection and bars proceedings challenging those appointments. A direction to appoint the respondent to a different post would be inconsistent with that legislative finality.

• Uncertainty in the Respondent’s Claim: The record showed that there were candidates above the respondent, and the respondent himself had sought to explain why they should not be considered. This indicated that his claim was not a self‑evident right, and a writ of mandamus could not be issued on such uncertain premises.

• Factual Vacancy vs. Legal Mode of Filling: The High Court conflated the existence of an unfilled post with the legal question of how to fill it. Even if the post remained vacant in fact, the rules did not permit it to be filled from the same select list. Such vacancies must be treated as fresh vacancies for a subsequent recruitment.

7. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

This judgment reinforces and clarifies several well‑settled principles of service law:

1. Select List Does Not Confer a Vested Right: The Court reiterated the consistent position that inclusion in a select list does not create a right to appointment. The right to be appointed is governed by the recruitment rules and the statutory framework, not by the mere fact of being placed in a list.

2. No Waiting List Unless Provided: The absence of a provision for a reserve or waiting list in the rules is fatal to a claim for appointment from the same list after the selection process is complete. A court cannot read such a provision into the rules.

3. Finality of Recruitment Process: Once the select list is published and appointments are made in accordance with the notified vacancies, the recruitment process attains finality. Vacancies arising thereafter (e.g., due to non‑joining) are to be treated as fresh vacancies for future recruitment.

4. Preference‑Based Allocation Must Be Respected: When a recruitment involves multiple services/posts with a preference system, a candidate who has already been appointed to one service cannot later claim a different service based on the non‑joining of another candidate, as this would undermine the integrity of the preference‑based allocation.

5. Legislative Validation Strengthens Finality: A legislative act validating a selection and barring challenges reinforces the finality of the process and cannot be bypassed by judicial direction.

8. The Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

• Interpretation of Rule 11: The Court examined Rule 11 in detail. It noted that Rule 11(1) mandates preparation of separate lists equal to the number of vacancies for each service. The proviso prohibits inclusion of a candidate in more than one list. This indicates a one‑time, service‑specific exercise. Rule 11(3) then provides for consideration in the order of the list. The Court held that there is no textual support for extending the list beyond the notified vacancies.

• Distinction Between “Consideration” and “Right to Appointment”: The Court drew a distinction between being “considered” for appointment (which is a procedural right) and having a vested right to appointment. The Rules only guarantee consideration in the order of merit; they do not guarantee that every vacancy must be filled from the same list if a selected candidate does not join.

• Preference System Under Rule 4(3): The Court emphasised that candidates must indicate their preferences, and they are not considered for services they did not prefer. The respondent had indicated his preference; he was selected and appointed to a post he had preferred. To now claim a different post would be to ignore the very preference system that governed the selection.

• Effect of Validation Act: The Court gave weight to the Validation Act of 2022, which was enacted to settle disputes concerning the 2011 selection. The Act validates the selection and appointments as made by the KPSC and bars any proceeding for review of such appointments. The High Court’s direction effectively sought to review the selection by altering the appointment. This was held to be inconsistent with the legislative intent.

• Writ of Mandamus – Conditions: The Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when there is a clear legal right and a corresponding duty. Here, the respondent did not have a clear legal right to be appointed to the KAS post under the Rules, and the State did not have a corresponding duty to appoint him from the same list.

9. Critical Analysis of the Judgment

This judgment is a sound reaffirmation of the limits of judicial intervention in recruitment matters.

• Strength – Upholding Statutory Framework: The Court’s strict adherence to the text of the 1997 Rules is commendable. It refused to read into the rules a waiting list mechanism that was never intended by the rule‑making authority. This respects the separation of powers and prevents courts from re‑writing service rules.

• Clarity on Vacancies: The judgment provides a clear answer to a recurring question: what happens when a selected candidate does not join? It holds that in the absence of a specific rule permitting filling from the same list, such vacancies are fresh vacancies to be filled in a future recruitment. This prevents indefinite extension of select lists.

• Protection of Merit and Preference: By refusing to allow the respondent to jump to a different post based on the non‑joining of another candidate, the Court protected the integrity of the merit‑based preference system. The respondent had already received an appointment; he could not now claim another.

• Potential Critique – Harsh on the Respondent: One could argue that the respondent, being the next meritorious candidate in the GM/Ex‑MP category, should have been considered for the KAS post when the selected candidate failed to join. However, the Court’s answer is that the rules did not provide for such consideration. The remedy, if any, lies in amending the rules to include a waiting list, not in judicial interference. This is a correct application of the principle that courts cannot supply omissions in statutory schemes.

• Rejection of High Court’s Reasoning: The Court correctly pointed out the fallacy in the High Court’s reasoning: the existence of an unfilled post does not automatically mean it must be filled from the same list. The legal question is whether the rules permit such filling. The High Court had ignored that critical question.

10. Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 21.04.2025 of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 24455 of 2023 (S‑KSAT), and dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 13.10.2023 was upheld. The respondent’s claim for appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Karnataka Administrative Service, Group A, Junior Scale, was rejected. No order as to costs.

11. (MCQs)

1. Under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers Rules, 1997, what is the effect of the preparation of a select list under Rule 11?
a) It confers an indefeasible right to appointment on all candidates included in the list.
b) It makes the candidates eligible for consideration for appointment to the notified vacancies in the order of merit.
c) It guarantees appointment to all candidates regardless of vacancies.
d) It creates a waiting list valid for five years.

2. Which of the following best describes the scheme of the 1997 Rules as interpreted by the Supreme Court in this judgment?
a) The select list is an open‑ended reservoir that can be used to fill any future vacancies.
b) Separate lists are prepared equal to the number of notified vacancies for each service, and the list is exhausted once those vacancies are filled.
c) The list remains valid indefinitely and can be operated whenever a vacancy arises.
d) Candidates can be appointed to any service regardless of their indicated preference.

3. What is the significance of the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 in this case?
a) It automatically entitles the respondent to the post claimed.
b) It validates the 2011 selection and appointments as per the KPSC list, and bars proceedings for review of such appointments.
c) It declares the 1997 Rules unconstitutional.
d) It directs the government to create additional posts for all candidates in the list.

4. According to the Supreme Court, how should a vacancy arising because a selected candidate fails to join be treated when the recruitment rules do not provide for a waiting list?
a) It must be filled from the same select list by taking the next candidate.
b) It must remain unfilled.
c) It must be treated as a fresh vacancy to be filled in a subsequent recruitment process.
d) It must be filled by the government at its discretion.