This Civil Appeal by the State of Karnataka impugns the judgment of the High Court directing appointment of the Respondent to the post of Assistant Teacher, as her name appears in the Additional List (Wait List) of candidates.
However, an Additional List (which is in the nature of a wait list) was published on 29.02.2016, which comprised of just one candidate, the Respondent herein.
of Karnataka dated 11.04.2003, which provides that an Additional List shall remain valid up to six months from the date of its publication or the date when all the posts are filled up, whichever is earlier.
For this, answer is up to 6 months of the announcement of additional list or by filling all the posts which has been already announced, whichever occurs first is to be taken into consideration.” As per the above referred clarification, the Additional List (wait list) will subsist for a period of six months from the date of its announcement.
These Rules have 5 undergone an amendment and the relevant portion of the amended Rule, being Entry 66 of the Schedule to the Rules, concerning ‘Primary School Assistant Cadre’, relied on is as under: “ The Selection authority shall prepare an additional list of candidates not included in the main list not exceeding ten per cent of the vacancies available. The list so prepared shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall cease to be operative from the date of publication of Notification for the subsequent recruitment of Primary School Teachers under these rules or any other rules specifically made for the recruitment of primary school teachers. Entry 66 of the Rules merely provides that the Selection authority shall prepare and publish an Additional List of candidates not exceeding ten percent of the vacancies and the said list shall cease to operate from the date of publication of notification for subsequent recruitments.
7 recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.
State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 122.”
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/?p=652
The position that emerges from the above decisions is that the duty to fill up vacancies from the Additional List ( waiting list) can arise only on the basis of a mandatory rule. In conclusion, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in directing the State to give effect to the Additional List and appoint the respondent within three months from the date of the order. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BHARATHI S. (2023 INSC 573)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003062-003062 / 2023
