A Concession in Law Contrary to Recruitment Rules Cannot Confer Vested Right on a Waitlisted Candidate
Union of India & Ors. v. Subit Kumar Das
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2243
A Concession in Law Contrary to Recruitment Rules Cannot Confer Vested Right on a Waitlisted Candidate
Union of India & Ors. v. Subit Kumar Das
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2243
A Concession in Law Contrary to Recruitment Rules Cannot Confer Vested Right on a Waitlisted Candidate
Union of India & Ors. v. Subit Kumar Das
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2243
Background
Pursuant to a requisition made by All India Radio, Eastern Zone, three posts of Technician were reserved for candidates belonging to the SC category. The Selection Committee interviewed eleven candidates and selected three in the order of merit against the existing vacancies. The respondent was placed at Serial No. 1 in the Reserved Panel, with a clear stipulation that candidates in the Reserved Panel would be appointed only in case any of the three selected candidates did not join the post. All three selected candidates duly joined, thereby exhausting the occasion to operate the wait list.
The respondent filed Original Application No. 989 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the decision of the Selection Committee. During the hearing of an interim application, a statement was recorded on 15.01.1999 on behalf of the appellants that as soon as a vacancy would arise against the SC quota, the respondent would be absorbed. The Tribunal, while rejecting all grounds of challenge on merits including the allegation of bias against the Selection Committee, directed the appellants to absorb the respondent against an available vacancy in terms of the said assurance. The High Court in WPCT No. 276 of 2005 affirmed that a waitlisted candidate had no legal right to claim appointment, yet retained the direction on account of the concession recorded on 15.01.1999. A fresh recruitment notice was published on 23.02.2013 by Prasar Bharti. The Deputy Director General (P) passed a speaking order on 19.02.2016 stating that all three vacancies had been filled, the respondent had crossed the maximum age limit, and absorption was therefore not possible. The Division Bench of the High Court in WPCT No. 24 of 2021, decided on 25.06.2024, directed the appellants to absorb the respondent in any vacancy under the SC category in the Eastern Zone within four weeks, with absorption to be given effect from 19.07.2013 on a notional basis. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
1. Whether a candidate placed in the Reserved Panel acquires any vested right to be appointed against future vacancies arising in a subsequent recruitment process
2. Whether the statement recorded on 15.01.1999 on behalf of the appellants before the Tribunal, to the effect that the respondent would be absorbed as soon as a vacancy arose against the SC quota, was binding on the appellants, notwithstanding that giving effect to it would result in violation of the Recruitment Rules
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding as under:
1. Mere placement in the wait list does not create any vested right for being appointed. The right to be
considered for appointment springs only in the contingency of a selected candidate not joining on his post. Since all three selected candidates had duly joined the post of Technician, the respondent's right as a waitlisted candidate stood extinguished and the wait list itself stood exhausted.
The statement recorded on 15.01.1999 amounted to a concession in law which was contrary to the statutory Recruitment Rules. A wrong concession on a question of law made by counsel is not binding on his client and cannot constitute a just ground for a binding precedent. The appellants were, therefore, within their right in canvassing the correct position of law and urging that they could not be compelled to act in violation of the Recruitment Rules.
Giving effect to the said statement would result in filling one post in a subsequent recruitment on the basis of an exercise carried out in a previous recruitment, causing prejudice to candidates seeking recruitment in the subsequent process and impermissibly extending the life of the wait list.
4. The High Court glossed over these vital aspects and erred in directing the absorption of the respondent. The writ petition preferred by the respondent was accordingly dismissed.
Background
The case arises from a money laundering prosecution linked to alleged bank fraud involving Jay Polychem India Ltd. The appellant, Parvinder Singh Khurana, though not initially named in the CBI FIR (2020) or the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) first complaint, was later arrested on 20 January 2023 and shown as an accused in ED’s supplementary complaint (March 17, 2023).
1. His first bail plea was rejected (March 10, 2023).
2. On June 17, 2023, the Special Court granted him regular bail, finding that he satisfied the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA.
3. Before release, ED moved the Delhi High Court under Section 439(2) CrPC for cancellation of bail.
4. On June 23, 2023, a vacation judge of the High Court stayed the bail order without hearing the accused or recording reasons.
5. The stay continued for nearly a year due to repeated adjournments, with even judges recusing after reserving orders.
6. The appellant remained in custody till 7th June 2024, when on the day of hearing Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s interim stay and restored the bail order.
Issues
1. Whether a candidate placed in the Reserved Panel acquires any vested right to be appointed against future vacancies arising in a subsequent recruitment process
2. Whether the statement recorded on 15.01.1999 on behalf of the appellants before the Tribunal, to the effect that the respondent would be absorbed as soon as a vacancy arose against the SC quota, was binding on the appellants, notwithstanding that giving effect to it would result in violation of the Recruitment Rules
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding as under:
1. Mere placement in the wait list does not create any vested right for being appointed. The right to be considered for appointment springs only in the contingency of a selected candidate not joining on his post. Since all three selected candidates had duly joined the post of Technician, the respondent's right as a waitlisted candidate stood extinguished and the wait list itself stood exhausted.
2. The statement recorded on 15.01.1999 amounted to a concession in law which was contrary to the statutory Recruitment Rules. A wrong concession on a question of law made by counsel is not binding on his client and cannot constitute a just ground for a binding precedent. The appellants were, therefore, within their right in canvassing the correct position of law and urging that they could not be compelled to act in violation of the Recruitment Rules.
3. Giving effect to the said statement would result in filling one post in a subsequent recruitment on the basis of an exercise carried out in a previous recruitment, causing prejudice to candidates seeking recruitment in the subsequent process and impermissibly extending the life of the wait list.
4. The High Court glossed over these vital aspects and erred in directing the absorption of the respondent. The writ petition preferred by the respondent was accordingly dismissed.
Background
Pursuant to a requisition made by All India Radio, Eastern Zone, three posts of Technician were reserved for candidates belonging to the SC category. The Selection Committee interviewed eleven candidates and selected three in the order of merit against the existing vacancies. The respondent was placed at Serial No. 1 in the Reserved Panel, with a clear stipulation that candidates in the Reserved Panel would be appointed only in case any of the three selected candidates did not join the post. All three selected candidates duly joined, thereby exhausting the occasion to operate the wait list.
The respondent filed Original Application No. 989 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the decision of the Selection Committee. During the hearing of an interim application, a statement was recorded on 15.01.1999 on behalf of the appellants that as soon as a vacancy would arise against the SC quota, the respondent would be absorbed. The Tribunal, while rejecting all grounds of challenge on merits including the allegation of bias against the Selection Committee, directed the appellants to absorb the respondent against an available vacancy in terms of the said assurance. The High Court in WPCT No. 276 of 2005 affirmed that a waitlisted candidate had no legal right to claim appointment, yet retained the direction on account of the concession recorded on 15.01.1999. A fresh recruitment notice was published on 23.02.2013 by Prasar Bharti. The Deputy Director General (P) passed a speaking order on 19.02.2016 stating that all three vacancies had been filled, the respondent had crossed the maximum age limit, and absorption was therefore not possible. The Division Bench of the High Court in WPCT No. 24 of 2021, decided on 25.06.2024, directed the appellants to absorb the respondent in any vacancy under the SC category in the Eastern Zone within four weeks, with absorption to be given effect from 19.07.2013 on a notional basis. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Issue
1. Whether a candidate placed in the Reserved Panel acquires any vested right to be appointed against future vacancies arising in a subsequent recruitment process
2. Whether the statement recorded on 15.01.1999 on behalf of the appellants before the Tribunal, to the effect that the respondent would be absorbed as soon as a vacancy arose against the SC quota, was binding on the appellants, notwithstanding that giving effect to it would result in violation of the Recruitment Rules
Key Holdings:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding as under:
1. Mere placement in the wait list does not create any vested right for being appointed. The right to be considered for appointment springs only in the contingency of a selected candidate not joining on his post. Since all three selected candidates had duly joined the post of Technician, the respondent's right as a waitlisted candidate stood extinguished and the wait list itself stood exhausted.
The statement recorded on 15.01.1999 amounted to a concession in law which was contrary to the statutory Recruitment Rules. A wrong concession on a question of law made by counsel is not binding on his client and cannot constitute a just ground for a binding precedent. The appellants were, therefore, within their right in canvassing the correct position of law and urging that they could not be compelled to act in violation of the Recruitment Rules.
Giving effect to the said statement would result in filling one post in a subsequent recruitment on the basis of an exercise carried out in a previous recruitment, causing prejudice to candidates seeking recruitment in the subsequent process and impermissibly extending the life of the wait list.
4. The High Court glossed over these vital aspects and erred in directing the absorption of the respondent. The writ petition preferred by the respondent was accordingly dismissed.
BACK TO LIST