In Union of India v. Respondent (Technician—All India Radio, Eastern Zone), the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Calcutta High Court’s direction to appoint the respondent, holding that inclusion in a reserve/wait list does not confer a right to appointment once the advertised vacancies are filled.

The dispute arose from a 1997 recruitment for three SC-category Technician posts at All India Radio. The respondent, placed first in the reserved/wait list, was not appointed as all three selected candidates had joined. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed his claim but directed that his case be considered if a vacancy arose later. In 2005, he again approached the Tribunal citing a subsequent SC vacancy, and the CAT directed his appointment. The High Court upheld this direction, prompting the Union’s appeal.

Before the bench of Justices Sri Narasimha Pamidighantam & Atul S. Chandurkar, it was contended that the 1997 selection process had concluded once all posts were filled, and no further appointment could be made from the same list after its expiry. The Court agreed, holding that the respondent’s inclusion in a waiting list did not create any enforceable right to appointment. It emphasised that a select list or waiting list remains valid only until the next selection cycle or the period explicitly prescribed in the recruitment rules.

Citing Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 and State of Bihar v. Md. Kalimuddin (1996) 2 SCC 7, the Court reiterated that the mere existence of a vacancy does not entitle a candidate to appointment unless such vacancy arises within the currency of the same selection process. The subsequent vacancy in 2005 could not be linked to the 1997 recruitment, as the earlier process had long lapsed.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the CAT’s original finding that the respondent was not entitled to appointment, holding that both the Tribunal and High Court had exceeded their jurisdiction in directing appointment beyond the life of the select list.

Takeaway: Inclusion in a waiting list does not create a right to appointment once the advertised vacancies are filled. A select list lapses after its prescribed period, and later vacancies must be filled through fresh recruitment, not by revival of expired lists.