Additional list neither creates right nor obligation to appoint candidates: SC

The Supreme Court has held that appearance of a candidate's name in the additional list neither creates a right nor a co-relative obligation for appointment as the decision to fill all the vacancies from such a list, is left to the wisdom of the State.

The court, however, said the State cannot act arbitrarily and its action will be subject to judicial review.

Acting on a plea by the Karnataka government, a bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha set aside the directions of the High Court for appointment Bharathi S as assistant teacher in Chikkaballapur.

The court relied upon the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 as amended in 2001.

Also Read | SC disrespected, federalism violated

"It is clear that there is no obligation on the State to make appointments. Mere publication of the additional list does not create any right to be appointed. There is no such mandate in the Rule," the bench said.

Citing previous judgement, the bench said, "The duty to fill up vacancies from the Additional List (waiting list) can arise only on the basis of a mandatory rule. In the absence of such a mandate, the decision to fill all the vacancies from the additional list, is left to the wisdom of the State. We will however add that State cannot act arbitrarily and its action will be subject to judicial review."

The bench said the High Court has committed an error in assuming the existence of a right to be appointed.

"We have seen that the Rule by itself does not create any right. Such a position is also not supported by any principle of law. Finally, the conclusion of the High Court that the Respondent was unaware of the resignation of the appointed candidate will have no bearing on the operation of the Rule. The operation of the Additional List, which is to be published in the official Gazette will depend upon the time specified in the Rule and not as per the knowledge of individual candidate," the bench added.