SC: Waitlisted candidate has no vested right to appointment—erroneous concession cannot override recruitment rules

Case Name: Union of India & Ors. v. Subit Kumar Das

Citation: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) Diary No. 57192 of 2024

Date of Judgment: 15 October 2025

Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Held: The Supreme Court held that a waitlisted candidate does not acquire any vested right to appointment once the selected candidates join service, and any subsequent concession or statement by the employer cannot override statutory recruitment rules. The Court ruled that a statement made on behalf of the Union of India in 1999 assuring absorption of a waitlisted candidate in a future vacancy could not bind the employer if its implementation would breach recruitment rules. A concession on a point of law, even if recorded before a judicial forum, cannot create legal rights contrary to statutory provisions.

Summary: The respondent, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, was placed first on the reserved panel for Technician posts in All India Radio’s 1997 recruitment. Since all selected candidates joined, the respondent was never appointed. In 1999, during proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the Union of India’s counsel stated that his case would be considered when the next SC vacancy arose. Relying on that assurance, the High Court later directed his absorption from 2013 onwards. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether such a concession could override the recruitment rules and the settled principle that waitlists cannot operate indefinitely. Referring to precedents (Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat; Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan; Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha v. Dr. K. Santhakumari), the Court held that once all selected candidates joined, the recruitment process concluded and the waitlist expired. The 1999 assurance could not revive a non-existent right or extend the life of a closed recruitment exercise.

Decision: Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order directing absorption of the respondent. It held that implementing the 1999 statement would violate recruitment rules and prejudice future candidates. The respondent’s writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.