Inclusion in reserve or waitlist does not confer right to appointment

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.

Join Our WhatsApp Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Join our Telegram Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Next Article

Not mandatory for minors to repudiate voidable transaction executed by guardian

In K.S. Shivappa vs Smt. K. Neelamma decided on 7 October 2025, the Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s decree holding that it is not mandatory for a minor to file a suit to repudiate a voidable transaction executed by a guardian; conduct suffices. The Supreme Court considered whether a minor must always file a suit on attaining majority to repudiate a voidable transaction executed by a guardian or whether repudiation could occur through conduct.

Rudrappa, the father and guardian of three minor sons, purchased two plots in 1971. Without court permission, he sold Plot No. 56 to S.I. Bidari (later transferred to B.T. Jayadevamma) and Plot No. 57 to Krishnoji Rao (later transferred to K. Neelamma). After attaining majority, the surviving minors, with their mother, sold both plots to K.S. Shivappa. Jayadevamma’s suit over Plot 56 was dismissed by the High Court, holding the minors’ sale effectively repudiated their father’s earlier deed. For Plot 57, the Trial Court favored Shivappa, but the High Court reversed, ruling Neelamma had valid title since no suit had been filed to challenge the original sale. Shivappa then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Section 8(2) and (3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act make it clear that any transfer of a minor’s property by a guardian without court permission is voidable at the instance of the minor. Legal texts (Travellyan, Mulla) and case law (Abdul Rahman v. Sukhdayal Singh, G. Annamalai Pillai v. District Revenue Officer, Chacko Mathew v. Ayyappan Kutty) confirm that such voidable transactions can be repudiated either by filing a suit or through unequivocal conduct, such as selling the property after attaining majority.

In the present case, the minors had repudiated the sale of Plot No. 57 by transferring it to Shivappa after attaining majority. Neelamma had failed to prove her title or verify that Krishnoji Rao had valid ownership. Her Power-of-Attorney witness could not fill this evidentiary gap. Therefore, Shivappa had valid rights over Plot No. 57. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale allowed the appeal.

Takeaway: A minor can repudiate a sale made by their guardian without court permission upon attaining majority, either by acting on the property (like selling it) or filing a suit. If no challenge is made, subsequent purchasers relying on the original sale may acquire valid title. Essentially, action or inaction by the minor determines whether a voidable transaction is upheld or canceled.

Join Our WhatsApp Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Join our Telegram Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Next Article

Contact Us

For Submitting a Post

contact@lawdrishti.com

For Banner ads & admission campaigns

advertise@lawdrishti.com

Timing

Hours: 9 AM – 9 PM (Mon-Sat)

See the below animation to allow notifications.

Start getting Lawdrishti updates useful for you!

Contact Us

For Submitting a Post

For Banner ads & admission campaigns

Contact us
For Submitting a Post
For Banner ads & admission campaigns
Timing

Hours: 9 AM – 9 PM (Mon-Sat)