The Supreme Court has ruled that the rights of waitlisted candidates come to an end once all the selected candidates in a recruitment process have joined their posts. The Court held that a waitlist cannot be treated as an enduring or permanent source of appointments, and once the selection process is completed with all chosen candidates occupying their positions, the waitlist stands extinguished. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, which overturned a decision of the Calcutta High Court that had directed the notional absorption of a waitlisted candidate long after the recruitment process had concluded.
The case originated from a 1997 recruitment drive by All India Radio for three Technician posts reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The respondent, Subit Kumar Das, was placed first on the waitlist for the reserved category and expected to be appointed in case any selected candidate failed to join or a new vacancy arose. However, all the originally selected candidates joined their respective posts, thereby exhausting the waitlist. Despite this, the respondent pursued litigation claiming that a concession made by the government’s counsel in 1999—promising that he would be appointed if a vacancy in the Scheduled Caste quota later arose—gave him a legitimate expectation of employment.
In 2024, the Calcutta High Court accepted this contention and ordered the notional absorption of the respondent from 2013, invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the government counsel’s earlier assurance. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, emphasizing that once the recruitment process is completed and all posts are filled, the rights of waitlisted candidates automatically expire. The Court observed that extending the validity of a waitlist indefinitely would interfere with future recruitment cycles and distort the selection process by carrying forward old claims that have no legal foundation.
The bench further clarified that any concession made by counsel before a court cannot override statutory recruitment rules or established legal principles. It reiterated that a mistaken or unauthorized concession made by a government representative does not bind the administration or alter the legal framework governing appointments. The judges noted that the concept of a waitlist is limited in scope and time—it is merely a temporary arrangement to fill vacancies that arise within the currency of a specific selection process. Once all the advertised posts are occupied, the waitlist loses its effect and cannot be revived.
The Court concluded that the Calcutta High Court erred in granting relief based on a long-expired recruitment process and a misconceived interpretation of legitimate expectation. It held that accepting such claims would unjustly deprive future aspirants of opportunities in subsequent recruitments and would contradict the basic principles of fairness and transparency in public employment.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and dismissed the writ petition of the respondent. The ruling reaffirmed that once all selected candidates have joined their posts, the rights of waitlisted candidates stand extinguished, bringing the recruitment process to a lawful and final close.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.