Union of India & Ors. v. Subit Kumar Das

SLP (Civil) Diary No. 57192 of 2024)

[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA and ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ]

The Supreme Court explored whether a waitlisted candidate for the position of Technician in the Scheduled Caste (SC) category in All India Radio (AIR) could claim absorption within service years after the date on which the panel’s selection period had lapsed, in accordance with a promise made before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The controversy started in 1997 when the All-India Radio, Eastern Zone, floated a requisition for recruitment to the post of Technician with three posts reserved for SC candidates. Eleven candidates were interviewed, and three of them were selected on the basis of merit. The candidate, Subit Kumar Das, was ranked one in the waiting list of reserved candidates, and it was specifically noted that they would be considered only in case any of the chosen candidates did not join. Unhappy, Das filed Original Application (OA) No. 989 of 1997 with the CAT, objecting to the selection process and praying for appointment. The Tribunal passed an interim order that the appointments made would be pending the outcome of the OA.

During these proceedings, a significant development took place on 15 January 1999 when the Union of India and All India Radio counsel submitted to the Tribunal that the case of the respondent would be considered for absorption “as soon as a vacancy arises against the SC quota.” On this statement of the counsel, the Tribunal issued no further interim orders.

Thereafter, the Tribunal disposed of the OA on 9 December 2004. It concluded that there was no irregularity in the process of selection or bias against the respondent and repeated the principle that a waitlisted candidate does not have any vested right to be appointed unless a selected candidate does not join during the life of the panel. However, in light of the undertaking on 15 January 1999, the Tribunal instructed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for absorption against the first vacant SC post in terms of the law within three months.

Aggrieved by this order, the Union of India and All India Radio moved a Writ Petition before the Calcutta High Court. On 23 February 2009, the Division Bench affirmed the Tribunal’s conclusions in respect of the validity of the selection process and there being no right of appointment of waitlisted candidates. However, it refused to interfere with the order of direction to consider the case of the respondent in light of the extant assurance recorded. The High Court simply adapted the time frame, making it clear that the instruction to deal with his case would still be effective whenever a vacancy occurred, without limitation to six months.

Years after that, in 2013, Prasar Bharati released a new recruitment notification for Technicians. The respondent once more went to the Tribunal in OA No. 739 of 2013, requesting absorption against the newly notified SC vacancy, relying on the previous assurance. The Tribunal granted an interim stay, ordering one SC post to remain vacant. In its final order of 27 November 2015, the Tribunal reaffirmed its previous direction that the appellants must act in terms of the 1999 assurance and dispose of the respondent’s case within a period of three months.

As a consequence of this, the Deputy Director General (Personnel) issued a speaking order on 19 February 2016. It noted that all three posts from the 1997 recruitment were already filled, and as the respondent was only on the reserve (waiting) list, he could not be taken on board. Further, the promise made in 1999 was subject to adherence to Recruitment Rules, which prescribed age and eligibility requirements. By 2013, the respondent had crossed the age limit allowed for appointment, and there was no instruction from any court or tribunal to relax the age limit. Thus, it was decided that the respondent could not be appointed against vacancies announced in 2013.

The Supreme Court, in condoning the delay and granting leave, was therefore asked to rule on whether the High Court was right in upholding the Tribunal’s order effectively extending the validity of a long-overdue selection panel and forcing absorption as against the recruitment rules. The appellants argued that such a ruling illegally expanded the rights of a waitlisted applicant and eroded established principles for public employment, while the respondent believed that the assurance entered into in 1999 was a binding promise.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Calcutta High Court was incorrect in ordering the Union of India and All India Radio to absorb the respondent, a waitlisted candidate, as a Technician under the Scheduled Caste category. The Court noted that while a statement was made on 15 January 1999 before the Tribunal promising that the respondent would be absorbed when an SC vacancy occurred, such a promise could not supersede statutory recruitment rules.

It explained that a statement or concession that is made before the court cannot be enforced if it causes a breach of law or recruitment rules. The application of the 1999 statement would have illegally prolonged the life of an expired waitlist and denied future applicants a fair chance in future recruitment procedures. As all the 1997 selection vacancies had been appropriately filled and the waitlist had expired, the respondent had no right to appointment under the law.

As such, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s judgment of 25 June 2024 and rejected the respondent’s writ petition, holding that the direction for absorption was unsustainable in law. The civil appeal was granted with no order as to costs.