Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-012685-012685 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 57192/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules Calcutta High Court judgment; affirms established precedents |
| Type of Law | Service law / administrative law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that a waiting list is operative only to fill vacancies caused by non-joining of selected candidates and cannot persist indefinitely once vacancies are filled or a fresh recruitment begins. A concession by counsel to absorb a waitlisted candidate does not override statutory Recruitment Rules. Erroneous concessions on questions of law may be corrected when compliance would violate the statute and prejudice fresh candidates. Enforcing the 15.01.1999 assurance would have required appointing a candidate 25 years later, conflicting with both the Recruitment Rules and settled service jurisprudence. The Division Bench’s direction to absorb the respondent was therefore unsustainable. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities | A waiting list is non-vested and expires once vacancies are filled or fresh recruitment starts; concessions on points of law conflicting with statute are not binding |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
In 1997, respondent was placed at Serial No.1 on SC reserved panel for Technician posts but all selected candidates joined; appellants assured in 1999 to absorb him on future SC vacancies; subsequent recruitments (2013) and orders (2016, 2020) denied absorption citing no vacancy and age limit; Calcutta High Court directed absorption in 2024 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and administrative tribunals |
| Overrules | Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in WPCT No. 24 of 2021 dated 25.06.2024 |
| Follows | Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat (1994 INSC 199) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Concessions made by counsel in court or tribunal cannot bind a party to act contrary to statutory Recruitment Rules.
- A waiting list operates only for the contingency of selected candidates not joining and ceases to exist once vacancies are filled or a fresh recruitment process commences.
- Employers may correct erroneous legal concessions if enforcing them would violate recruitment regulations and prejudice fresh candidates.
- Practitioners can cite this decision to challenge attempts to enforce outdated waiting list claims beyond their validity.
- Government bodies should avoid making open-ended assurances that conflict with statutory recruitment frameworks.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reaffirmed that a waiting list has no source of recruitment beyond filling immediate vacancies and cannot stretch indefinitely, citing Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. v. State of Gujarat.
- The only basis for the respondent’s claim was the 15.01.1999 statement by counsel, which had limited operation and could not override the clear terms of the Recruitment Rules.
- Concessions on points of law that conflict with statutory provisions are not binding and may be corrected, as held in Uptron India Ltd. and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha.
- Giving effect to the 1999 assurance would require appointing a waitlisted candidate 25 years later, in breach of both Recruitment Rules and settled service jurisprudence, and would prejudice fresh candidates.
- The High Court’s direction to absorb the respondent was thus legally unsustainable and set aside.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Union of India & Ors.)
- The respondent, as a waitlisted candidate, had no vested right because all selected candidates joined their posts.
- The 15.01.1999 concession cannot bind the appellants as it conflicts with statutory Recruitment Rules.
- A waiting list expires once vacancies are filled or a fresh recruitment process begins; absorption 25 years later is impermissible.
- Enforcing the concession would violate Recruitment Rules and prejudice future candidates.
Respondent (Subit Kumar Das)
- Appellants gave a solemn assurance on 15.01.1999 to absorb him against future SC vacancies, which was not honoured.
- Once an SC vacancy arose in 2013, his right to absorption crystallised under earlier orders.
- Appellants cannot retract the assurance by citing age-bar or rules and thereby take advantage of their own wrong.
Factual Background
In 1997, All India Radio Eastern Zone conducted recruitment for three Technician posts reserved for SC, placing the respondent at Serial No.1 on the reserved panel after selected candidates joined and exhausted the wait list. On 15.01.1999, appellants’ counsel assured the Tribunal that the respondent would be absorbed on future SC vacancies. Subsequent recruitments in 2013 and speaking orders in 2016 and 2020 refused absorption citing no vacancy and age-bar. The Calcutta High Court directed his absorption in 2024, prompting the appeal.
Statutory Analysis
The Court examined the statutory Recruitment Rules governing appointment to Technician posts, focusing on vacancy availability and maximum age limits. It held that these rules categorically prohibit absorbing waitlisted candidates once the original vacancies are filled or a fresh recruitment process is initiated. No “reading down” or “reading in” of the Rules was applied; the Court enforced the unamended statutory scheme as written.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms that waiting lists do not create vested rights and that erroneous legal concessions may be corrected.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Overrules the Calcutta High Court’s order directing delayed absorption of a waitlisted candidate.