Case Name:
State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Santhosh Kumar C.
Date of Judgment:
23 March 2026.
Parties:
The appellants are the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), and the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR), Government of Karnataka.
The respondent is Santhosh Kumar C., an ex-serviceman, who was the writ petitioner before the Karnataka High Court.
Counsel for Appellants: Mr. Nishanth Patil, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR, and Mr. Awanish Gupta, Mr. Arijit Dey, Ms. Bhumi Agrawal, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Mr. Kunal Rana, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Ms. Diksha Arora and Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Advocates.
Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Shloka Narayanan, AOR, with Ms. Shubhani D. Krishan, Advocate.
2. Bench & Quorum
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justice Vikram Nath, who authored the judgment, and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
3. Procedural History of the Case
a)The proceedings originate from a recruitment notification dated 03.11.2011 issued by the KPSC for 362 posts of Karnataka Gazetted Probationers in Group A and Group B Services, governed by the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997 (the "1997 Rules"). The final select list was published on 21.03.2014.
b)In the General Merit/Ex-Military Person (GM/Ex-MP) category, Sri Aiyappa M.A. was selected for the post of Assistant Commissioner, Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS), Group A, Junior Scale. He did not undergo the mandatory medical examination or police verification and did not report for duty. The respondent, who had been selected for a separate post under the same recruitment, submitted a representation on 26.05.2022 to DPAR claiming the vacancy left by Sri Aiyappa M.A.'s non-joining.
c)On 27.06.2022, DPAR denied the representation, stating there was no provision in the 1997 Rules for an extra select list and that the vacancy must be regarded as a new vacancy for later recruitment.
d)The respondent challenged this decision in the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. On 13 October 2023, the KSAT upheld the State's position and dismissed the application. The respondent then filed Writ Petition Number 24455 of 2023(SKSAT) to the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, which allowed the application in its judgment of 21 April 2025 and set aside both KSAT's order and DPAR's communication and ordered the State to consider the respondent for employment to the subject position.
e)The State of Karnataka sought permission from the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition, which subsequently became a Civil Appeal after granting leave and having finally been heard.
4. Facts of the Case
a)The KPSC issued a notification on 03.11.2011 for 362 posts of Karnataka Gazetted Probationers in Group A and Group B Services under the 1997 Rules. The respondent, an ex-serviceman, participated in the competitive examination. The final select list was published on 21.03.2014.
b)In the GM/Ex-MP category Sri Aiyappa M.A was chosen for the position of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Group A, Junior Scale. The Respondent had been independently appointed to this post on account of his strengths as a candidate by means of a notification issued on 05/05/2022. The Respondent joined duty on duty effective 09/05/2022.
c)The fact that Sri Aiyappa M.A. failed to attend for mandatory medical examinations and police verifications prior to or at the same time as he assumed duty meant that he had not filled the vacancy and therefore left KAS vacant. The respondent made representation dated 26/05/2022 to DPAR on the grounds that he was entitled to an appointment due to him being placed immediately below the selected candidate with the same preference in accordance with the procedure for selection for this post. These representations were ultimately rejected by DPAR, KSAT, as well as the Supreme Court; only the High Court accepted the Respondent's claim.
5. Issues
i.Whether, under the 1997 Rules, a vacancy arising during the 2011 recruitment process on account of a selected candidate not completing mandatory pre-appointment formalities or not reporting for duty could be claimed as of right by the respondent on the ground that he was the candidate immediately next below in the order of selection.
ii.Whether the factual existence of an unfilled post, without more, translates into a legal entitlement in favour of the next candidate in the select list, in the absence of any enabling provision in the governing recruitment rules.
iii.Whether the Karnataka High Court was correct in holding that Rule 11(3) of the 1997 Rules was not attracted on the facts, and in directing the State to consider the respondent for appointment against the said vacancy.
iv.The respondent also prayed for a direction to the appellants to appoint him to the post of Assistant Commissioner, KAS, Group A, Junior Scale, under the GM/Ex-MP category, against the vacancy said to have remained unfilled on account of Sri Aiyappa M.A.'s non-reporting.
6. Arguments
On behalf of the Appellants (State of Karnataka, KPSC and DPAR):
- The appellants, through the Additional Advocate General, urged that the 1997 Rules did not contemplate any additional or waiting list. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and Rule 11, read together, required preparation of a select list co-terminus with the notified vacancies. Any vacancy arising from non-joining of a selected candidate had to be treated as a fresh vacancy to be filled through subsequent recruitment, not through re-operation of the existing list.
- It was contended that inclusion in a select list conferred no justiciable right to appointment and that the High Court had erred in directing consideration of the respondent in the absence of any statutory provision enabling such substitution.
On behalf of the Respondent (Santhosh Kumar C.):
- The respondent contended that the Government had decided to fill all notified vacancies and could not leave the KAS post vacant merely because the selected candidate had not undergone the mandatory medical examination. Since the post factually remained vacant and the respondent was the immediately next candidate having indicated preference for it, he urged that the Rules, read fairly, and equity, demanded that he be considered.
- He further maintained that Rule 11(3) was not attracted and that the High Court had correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction.
Legal Provisions involved:
Rule 4(3), Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1997: Requires every candidate to clearly indicate, in the application form, the services or posts for which he seeks consideration, in the order of preference, and bars consideration for any service or post not so preferred.
Rule 11(1), 1997 Rules: Mandates the KPSC to prepare separate lists of candidates, each equal in number to the available vacancies for that service or group, arranged in order of merit; further provides, by proviso, that a candidate's name shall not appear in more than one such list.
Rule 11(2), 1997 Rules: Requires the select list prepared under Rule 11(1) to be published in the Official Gazette and forwarded, along with marks, to the Government and to each listed candidate.
Rule 11(3), 1997 Rules: Directs that candidates on the list be considered for appointment to notified vacancies in the order in which their names appear, subject to the Government's satisfaction, after such inquiry and verification as necessary, as to the suitability of the candidate.
Section 3, Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers)
Act, 2022: Validates the selection and appointment of the 2011 batch Gazetted Probationers made by the KPSC, mandates issuance of appointment orders in conformity with the KPSC selection list, and bars any suit or proceeding for review of any appointment made thereunder.
Section 19, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Confers jurisdiction on State Administrative Tribunals to adjudicate upon service matters, including disputes relating to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services under the State Government.
7. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 21.04.2025, dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent, and restored the order of the KSAT dated 13.10.2023. The judgment was authored by Justice Vikram Nath. The Court's reasoning proceeds through several interlocking propositions, each of which is examined in detail below.
(a) The Statutory Scheme of the 1997 Rules
The Court commenced its analysis by closely examining the relevant provisions of the 1997 Rules. Rule 4(3) requires candidates to indicate, in their application forms, the services or posts for which they wish to be considered in the order of preference. Rule 11(1) mandates the KPSC to prepare separate lists of candidates equal to the available number of vacancies for each service and group, with the proviso that no candidate's name shall appear in more than one such list. Rule 11(3) directs that candidates on the list be considered for appointment to notified vacancies in the order in which their names appear, subject to inquiry and verification as to suitability.
The Court elaborated that the scheme was "not one of mere abstract ranking, but of a structured and service-specific selection against notified vacancies." Rule 11, read with Rule 4(3), contemplated preparation of separate lists for each service and group of posts, with each list being finite and confined to the vacancies notified.
The Rule, the Court held, "does not indicate that the list is to continue as an open-ended source of appointment even after the notified vacancies have been exhausted or the selection process has otherwise run its course." The Court further noted that the 1997 Rules provide for no reserve list, no waiting list, and no additional list, and contain no mechanism enabling the State to revert to the same list to fill a post left vacant by non-joining.
(b) Select List Confers Eligibility, Not Entitlement
On the core legal question, the Court reaffirmed the settled principle:
"The above understanding also accords with the settled principle that inclusion of a candidate's name in a select list does not by itself confer an indefeasible right to appointment. A select list makes a candidate eligible for consideration in accordance with the governing rules. It does not create a vested right to claim appointment dehors the statutory framework."
The Court relied on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, which authoritatively held that even where vacancies exist, a candidate on the select list does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment unless the rules so indicate. Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi (2010) 2 SCC 637 and State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda (2010) 6 SCC 777 were also cited for the proposition that appointments must conform to notified vacancies and governing rules, and that a select list cannot be operated in a manner not contemplated by the statutory scheme.
(c) Absence of an Enabling Provision is Decisive
Turning to the specific claim of the respondent, the Court held:
"The respondent does not point to any provision in the 1997 Rules under which a candidate placed below a selected candidate acquires a right to be appointed to a post left unfilled on account of non-completion of pre-appointment formalities or non-joining. In the absence of such a provision, the mere fact that a selected candidate did not join cannot, by itself, create an enforceable right in favour of the respondent."
The Court rejected the respondent's reliance on his indicated preference for the post, holding that neither that circumstance, nor the factual non-joining of the selected candidate, could independently create an enforceable right. The relevant question under the Rules was "not merely whether a post remained unfilled in fact, but whether the Rules permit such post to be filled by reverting to the same select list and moving downward to another candidate." Since the 1997 Rules contained no such enabling provision, the answer was in the negative.
(d) Finality of a Service-wise, Preference-based Selection Exercise
The Court emphasised the structural character of the recruitment process, which involved selection to multiple services and posts requiring candidates to indicate preferences and the KPSC to prepare separate service-wise lists. This allocation exercise had attained finality. The Court held:
"Once that exercise had culminated in publication of the final list and appointments were made in accordance therewith, the respondent could not claim, in the absence of express statutory sanction, that he should be shifted to another post merely because the selected candidate for that post did not complete the pre-appointment formalities or did not join."
The Court cautioned that any post-facto adjustment of the kind sought by the respondent "would risk unsettling a service-wise and preference-based allocation exercise which had already attained finality."
(e) Government's Decision to Fill Vacancies Cannot Create Individual Rights
The Court specifically addressed and rejected the High Court's reasoning that the principle of no vested right to appointment would not apply because the Government had already decided to appoint:
"The decision of the Government to fill the notified vacancies cannot be equated with creation of a right in favour of every candidate below the selected candidate to claim automatic substitution in the event of non-joining. The right, if any, must arise from the Rules themselves. In the absence of any provision in the 1997 Rules enabling such substitution, the respondent could not claim appointment merely because one selected candidate did not complete the pre-appointment process."
(f) Reinforcement by the Validation Act, 2022
The Court drew further support from the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022. Section 3 of the Act validates the 2011 batch selection, mandates issuance of appointment orders per the KPSC selection list, and bars suits or proceedings for review of any appointment so made. The Court held:
"A direction which, in effect, reopens that concluded process and compels recourse to a mode of appointment not contemplated by the 1997 Rules would be plainly inconsistent with such legislative finality."
(g) The Error Committed by the High Court
The Court identified the precise error of the High Court as having conflated the factual existence of an unfilled post with the legal question as to the permissible mode of filling it:
"Even if it were assumed that the post continued to remain vacant in fact, the further question still remained whether the 1997 Rules permitted the same select list to be operated for filling such post. It is precisely on that question that the High Court, with respect, fell into error."
The Court further held that the High Court was wrong to hold Rule 11(3) had no application. It is Rules 11(1), 11(3) and Rule 4(3), read together, that "delineate the scope of the select list, the manner in which service-wise consideration is to take place, and the limits within which appointments may be made against the vacancies notified in that recruitment." The Court concluded:
"Once the Rules themselves define the contours of the list and do not provide for any reserve or additional list, the absence of a selected candidate from the field cannot enlarge the statutory operation of the list."
(h) Factual Infirmity in the Respondent's Claim
As an additional ground, the Court noted that the respondent's asserted position as the exclusively entitled candidate was "not free from difficulty" even on the facts, since the record indicated there were candidates above him in the merit list whose claims had not been addressed. A writ of mandamus directing appointment consideration "could not have been issued on so uncertain a premise."
(i) Operative Order
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 21.04.2025 in Writ Petition No. 24455 of 2023 (S-KSAT), dismissed the writ petition, and restored the KSAT's order dated 13.10.2023. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
8. Conclusion
The decision in State of Karnataka v. Santhosh Kumar C. (2026 INSC 276) is a clear and precise restatement of the law governing the operation of select lists in public service recruitment. The judgment is significant on several counts.
First, the Court has drawn an unambiguous line between the factual existence of a vacancy and any legal right to fill it from the same select list. The factual reality of a post remaining unfilled does not create any enforceable entitlement in the next candidate. The right to claim a particular vacancy must derive from the governing statutory rules. Where the rules are silent, no such right exists.
Second, the judgment reinforces the principle established in Shankarsan Dash (1991) that a select list is an instrument of eligibility, not absolute entitlement. This principle applies with equal force even where the Government has decided to fill vacancies, and even where a candidate has indicated preference for a particular post. The Government's decision to recruit cannot be read as a guarantee to every listed candidate that every post will be individually preserved.
Third, the judgment underscores the structural significance of service-wise, preference-based selection processes. Once such a multi-post, multi-service allocation exercise has attained finality, it cannot be disturbed by post-facto adjustments without statutory authority. Any such disturbance risks unsettling the entire framework and the rights of other candidates.
Fourth, the Court affirmed the relevance of a validating statute as an indicator of legislative intent to attach finality to a concluded selection. Courts must be slow to issue directions that effectively reopen such processes absent clear statutory authorisation.
Fifth, the judgment is a firm reminder that writ courts cannot extend equitable or sympathetic relief in recruitment matters by bypassing the statutory framework. The Court's function is to determine whether the Rules permit the claimed right, not to create one where the rules are silent.
In sum, this decision is a significant precedent on the law of select lists and public service recruitment. It will govern analogous disputes before Service Tribunals and High Courts across India, reaffirming that in matters of public employment, legal entitlement is measured by the statutory rules and not by equitable sympathy alone.
