Supreme Court – Waitlist Candidates Have No Right to Appointment

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/Order: 15 October 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Held: The Supreme Court of India held that a candidate placed in a reserved panel or waiting list has no vested right of appointment once all selected candidates have joined and the recruitment cycle is closed. The Court ruled that a concession or assurance made by counsel cannot override statutory recruitment rules. Consequently, the High Court’s direction to absorb the respondent as a Technician in All India Radio was set aside.

Summary: The Union of India, through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Director General of All India Radio (AIR), challenged the Calcutta High Court’s direction requiring it to absorb the respondent, Subit Kumar Das, as a Technician in the Scheduled Caste (SC) category.

In 1997, AIR conducted a recruitment process for three SC posts of Technician. The respondent, though not selected, was placed first in the reserved (wait) list. All three selected candidates joined, and the panel lapsed. However, during proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 1999, counsel for AIR stated that the respondent would be considered “as soon as a vacancy arises against the SC quota.”

Over subsequent years, multiple litigations ensued before the Tribunal and the High Court, culminating in a 2024 order directing his absorption in any SC vacancy, with notional benefits from 2013. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Apex Court observed that the respondent’s claim rested solely on the 1999 statement, which could not override Recruitment Rules. Referring to precedents such as Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat (1994 INSC 199) and Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan (1998 INSC 74), the Court reaffirmed that a wrong concession on a question of law is not binding and cannot confer a right inconsistent with statutory norms.

The Court further clarified that extending the validity of a waitlist indefinitely or applying it to subsequent recruitments would prejudice future candidates and undermine constitutional equality in public employment.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Calcutta High Court judgment dated 25 June 2024, and dismissed the respondent’s writ petition. It held that the respondent had no right of absorption as all 1997 vacancies were duly filled, and the assurance recorded in 1999 could not be enforced against the Recruitment Rules. No costs were awarded.