No Automatic Job Claim If Selected Candidate Doesn’t Join: Supreme Court Draws Clear Line on Recruitment Rules

In State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Santhosh Kumar C, the Supreme Court clarified that candidates in a select list do not have a vested right to claim appointment merely because a selected candidate fails to join. The ruling reinforces that recruitment must strictly follow governing service rules.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the State’s appeal and set aside the Karnataka High Court’s direction to consider the respondent for appointment as Assistant Commissioner in the Karnataka Administrative Service.

The Court clearly stated that vacancies arising from non-joining cannot automatically be passed on to the next candidate unless the rules expressly allow it. Recruitment processes must remain within the statutory framework and cannot be expanded through assumptions.

“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 dispute originated from a 2011 recruitment notification for 362 posts of Karnataka Gazetted Probationers under the 1997 Rules. The respondent, an ex-serviceman, was appointed to a different post but later sought appointment to a higher position after another selected candidate failed to join.

The State rejected this request, arguing that the rules did not provide for a waiting list or shifting of vacancies. It maintained that such vacancies must be treated as fresh and filled through a new recruitment process.

While the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal supported the State’s position, the High Court took a different view and directed reconsideration. This prompted the State to approach the Supreme Court.

The Court emphasised that inclusion in a select list only gives eligibility, not an enforceable right. It was observed that the respondent failed to identify any rule permitting such a claim.

“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.”

Rejecting the respondent’s assumption, the Court further noted that migration to higher posts was not permitted under the rules. It reiterated that recruitment cannot operate beyond what is expressly provided.

“…the respondent’s case rests on an assumption that whenever a selected candidate does not complete the pre-appointment requirements or does not report for duty, the post must pass on to the next candidate below.”

The judgment ultimately restored the Tribunal’s findings and reaffirmed that administrative discipline and statutory compliance must guide public appointments.