The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, observing that the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers Rules, 1997, does not provide for a reserve or waiting list, and a vacancy arising due to a selected candidate’s failure to report for duty cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the candidate next in merit.
The case is from a recruitment notification issued by the Karnataka Public Service Commission for 362 Gazetted Probationer posts. The respondent, an ex-serviceman, was selected and appointed as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Group A. However, he submitted a representation to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) claiming appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Karnataka Administrative Service, as the candidate originally selected for that post did not undergo a medical examination or report for duty. DPAR rejected the request while communicating that the 1997 Rules lacked provisions for an additional select list.
Aggrieved by the communication, the respondent challenged this before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the application, holding that there was no provision under the 1997 Rules for preparing an additional select list and that a post not filled on account of non-reporting by a selected candidate had to be treated as a fresh vacancy. Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, which allowed and quashed the order of the tribunal, directing the state to consider the respondent for the post. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellants have approached this Court in the present appeal.
Hearing the appeal, the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that under Rule 11 of the 1997 Rules, the KPSC prepares separate lists equal to the available number of vacancies, and these lists are not open-ended reservoirs. The Court emphasized that the 1997 Rules do not contain any enabling provision for the state to travel downward in the list to fill a post left unfilled by a selected candidate. It further observed that the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022, underscored the legislative intent to attach finality to the original selection list.
The court also held that the High Court erred in conflating the factual existence of an unfilled post with the legal right to fill it, clarifying that the decision of the government to fill notified vacancies does not create an automatic right of substitution for lower-ranked candidates.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside.
Appearance:
For Petitioner- Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Awanish Gupta, Adv. Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. Ms. Bhumi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent- Ms. Shloka Narayanan, AOR Ms. Shubhani D Krishan, Adv.
