Supreme Court rules that being on a waitlist doesn’t grant a right to appointment and clarifies that an erroneous legal concession by counsel cannot override statutory recruitment rules, overturning the Calcutta High Court’s order in Subit Kumar Das’s case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling on public employment and service law, the Supreme Court of India clarified that mere inclusion in a waitlist does not create any vested right to appointment. The Court also emphasized that an erroneous concession made by a counsel on a question of law does not bind the client, especially when such a concession conflicts with statutory recruitment rules.
The judgment came in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Subit Kumar Das, where the Apex Court set aside a Calcutta High Court order directing All India Radio (AIR) to absorb a waitlisted candidate from a 1997 recruitment process.
Background of the Case
In 1997, All India Radio, Eastern Zone, initiated recruitment for the post of Technician, reserving three posts for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates. After the selection process, three candidates were selected, and Subit Kumar Das was placed at Serial No. 1 in the reserved panel (waitlist), to be considered only if any of the selected candidates failed to join.
Since all selected candidates joined their posts, the waitlist was effectively exhausted.
However, Mr. Das approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), challenging the selection and seeking appointment. During the hearing, on January 15, 1999, counsel for the Union of India reportedly stated that “as soon as a vacancy arises against the SC quota, the applicant would be absorbed.”
Though the Tribunal later dismissed Mr. Das’s challenge to the selection process, it directed the authorities to consider his absorption based on that statement.
Years later, when a fresh recruitment was announced in 2013, Mr. Das again sought enforcement of the earlier assurance. The Calcutta High Court, in June 2024, directed AIR to absorb him with notional effect from 2013, a decision now overturned by the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The case raised two key questions:
- Does inclusion in a waitlist create a right to appointment?
- Can a statement or concession made by government counsel before a tribunal override statutory recruitment rules?
Supreme Court’s Analysis
A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered a detailed judgment reaffirming long-settled principles of service law.
1. Waitlist is Not a Source of Recruitment
The Court cited the landmark 1994 judgment in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association vs. State of Gujarat, reiterating that:
“A waiting list prepared in an examination does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only if any of the selected candidates does not join.”
The Bench held that Mr. Das’s right as a waitlisted candidate “extinguished when all selected candidates joined their posts.”
Extending his claim to future vacancies, the Court said, would “impermissibly prolong the life of the waitlist” and reduce opportunities for new candidates.
2. Erroneous Concession on Law Not Binding
Addressing the 1999 assurance given by government counsel, the Court clarified that a wrong concession on a question of law cannot bind the client or override statutory provisions.
Quoting from its earlier rulings in Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha v. Dr. K. Santhakumari, the Court observed:
“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.”
The Bench added that giving effect to the 1999 statement would have violated recruitment rules and prejudiced new applicants by filling a fresh vacancy from an expired recruitment list.
Finding the High Court’s order “unsustainable in law,” the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and All India Radio, and dismissed the respondent’s claim.
The Court concluded:
“Giving effect to such a statement would result in a waitlisted candidate being given an appointment notwithstanding the fact that all selected candidates had duly joined their posts… This would amount to filling one post in a subsequent recruitment based on a previous recruitment, which is impermissible.”
Case Title:
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS SUBIT KUMAR DAS
Diary No.57192 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT