The division judge bench of Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha of the Apex Court in the case of the State of Karnataka & Ors Vs Smt. Bharathi S held that in the absence of any mandatory rule, the decision to fill all the vacancies from the Additional List is left to the wisdom of the State.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Respondent applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary School. When the final list of the candidates was issued and the name of the Respondent was not there. However, the name of the Respondent was included in the Additional list. The Additional List included a statement stating that mere inclusion would not give a right to appointment and that the selection of the individuals included in the Additional List is provisional and subject to all directives the government may receive.
Thereafter, the Respondent addressed the Appellant to consider her application as the selected candidate refused to take up the post. However, the request made by the Respondent was rejected by the Govt. of Karnataka on the ground that the Respondent made the representation after 6 months. The decision was challenged before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and the tribunal dismissed the proceedings. The same was challenged before the High Court and the High Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
Observations by the Court:
The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, as amended in 2001, are the rules governing the services. A careful reading of Entry 66, the relevant provision that applies to the services, makes it plain that the State is not required to make any appointments. No appointment right is established by the simple publishing of the Additional List. In the Rule, there is no such requirement. In simple terms, Entry 66 of the Rules states that the Selection Authority shall create and publish an Additional List of applicants, not to exceed 10% of the vacancies and that the said list shall cease to be in effect as of the date of publication of notification for subsequent recruitments.
It was furthermore observed that the vacancies arising out of an additional list can only be filled based on mandatory rules. However, if there is no mandate, then, it should be left up to the discretion of the state. Additionally, the State cannot act arbitrarily and its action will be subject to judicial review.
It was noted that the High Court committed an error in taking into consideration Entry 66 in the schedule to the 1967 Rules.
It was also noted that the operation of the Additional List, which must be published in the official Gazette, will be subject to the deadlines outlined in the Rule, not to the knowledge of particular candidates.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the High Court committed an error in directing the State to appoint Respondent.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Top Court allowed the present appeal.
Case Title: The State of Karnataka & Ors Vs Smt. Bharathi S
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3062 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 516 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Nikhil Goel, AAG Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Adithya Roy, Adv.
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Bhaskar Nayak, Adv.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
