The Supreme Court has overturned a Calcutta High Court order, ruling that waitlisted candidates for government jobs do not have a vested right to appointment once all selected candidates have joined their posts. The ruling came in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Subit Kumar Das, where the apex court heard an appeal against a Calcutta High Court directive ordering All India Radio (AIR) and the Union of India to absorb Subit Kumar Das, a waitlisted Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate from a 1997 recruitment process.
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar stated that a waitlist cannot remain operative indefinitely and expires once all posts are filled through the recruitment process. Writing for the bench, Justice Chandurkar noted that the High Court had glossed over vital legal aspects. The Supreme Court emphasized that a waitlisted candidate has no vested right to claim appointment once all selected candidates join their posts. The right to be considered for appointment arises only if a selected candidate does not join. The court added that the waiting list cannot be treated as an infinite stock for appointments.
The case originated from a 1997 recruitment drive by All India Radio (AIR) for three Technician posts reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. Subit Kumar Das, the respondent, was placed first on the waiting list but was not appointed because all selected candidates had joined. In 1999, a government counsel informally assured that Das would be accommodated when a vacancy arose. This assurance led to prolonged litigation spanning 25 years. In June 2024, the Calcutta High Court, citing the doctrine of legitimate expectation, directed AIR to absorb him with notional effect from 2013.
The Supreme Court found the High Court's order "unsustainable in law". The court stated that enforcing the 1999 statement would result in a waitlisted candidate being given an appointment despite all selected candidates having joined, which would violate recruitment rules and prejudice new applicants. It would effectively fill a post in a later recruitment using an earlier process, unfairly reducing vacancies for new applicants and impermissibly extending the life of an exhausted waitlist.
The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of a concession made by government counsel in 1999. The bench remarked that a wrong concession on a question of law made by counsel is not binding on the client. The judges underlined that implementing the High Court's order would extend the life of a waitlist indefinitely, a move that would be unfair to new aspirants. The court clarified that an erroneous legal concession by counsel cannot override statutory recruitment rules. If giving effect to such a concession leads to violation of statutory provisions, the concerned party can seek correction of that error and cannot be compelled to honor a legally impermissible concession.
The Supreme Court concluded that the 1997 recruitment process ended once all vacancies were filled. The High Court, therefore, erred in directing the respondent's absorption. The apex court emphasized that a waitlisted candidate has no vested right to claim appointment once all selected candidates join their posts. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and All India Radio, dismissing Das's claim.
