The State of Karnataka & Ors. vs Smt. Bharathi S.
Background
The respondent applied for the post of Assistant Teacher at a Government Primary School in Chikkaballapur District, Karnataka. A final select list of five candidates was issued in January 2016, which did not include her, but a separate "Additional List" (a kind of wait list) published a month later named her as its sole entry, with a note that inclusion did not guarantee appointment. When a selected candidate later declined the post, the respondent asked the State in September 2016 to appoint her, but this was seven months after the Additional List's publication, beyond the six-month validity period fixed by a 2003 government clarification. The State rejected her request; the High Court, however, ruled in her favour, holding the State had been careless in filling the vacancy and ordering her appointment.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court. It held that the relevant recruitment rule (Entry 66 of the Karnataka Education Department Services Recruitment Rules, 1967, as amended) merely allows the government to prepare an Additional List. It creates no obligation on the State to actually appoint anyone from it. Citing settled precedent (including Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India), the Court reiterated that being on a select or wait list, by itself, never creates an indefeasible right to a job unless a specific rule mandates it; the State always retains discretion whether to fill vacancies at all, so long as it doesn't act arbitrarily or discriminate. Since there was no such mandatory rule here, and the respondent's own request came after the list had already expired, the High Court's direction to appoint her was set aside.
Lesson Learnt
Getting your name onto a government selection or wait list does not, by itself, give you a legal right to be appointed. Unless a specific rule says the employer must fill the post from that list, the decision remains within the government's discretion, provided it isn't exercised arbitrarily.