In the case at hand State of Karnataka v. Bharathi S In a government elementary school, the responder sought the post of assistant teacher but was not chosen. Later, a list with the respondent’s name was published, although it was governed by government regulations. The reply requested consideration for the post after a chosen applicant refused it, but it was denied since it had been longer than six months. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and then the Karnataka High Court both heard appeals of the judgement. The Karnataka High Court ruled that the State had breached its duty to notify the respondent of the vacant position and that there had been latches in filling the vacancy because of this, the High Court held that the respondent was not at fault for filing her application after the allotted six-month period had passed. The appellants were therefore instructed to implement the Additional List within three months of the order’s date.
Supreme Court Verdict
The functioning of the Additional List, which is to be published in the official Gazette, would depend on the period given in the Rule and not on the knowledge of specific candidates, according to the Supreme Court panel composed of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJI, and PS Narasimha. The Court additionally ruled that the inclusion of a name on the Additional List does not confer any rights or obligations regarding the appointment.
The Court noted that the Proceedings just acted as an executive directive and could not be used to exclude the implementation of the Rules that regulate services. The Karnataka Education Department Services Department of Public Instructions Recruitment Rules, 1967, as updated in 2001, are the rules that regulate the services. The Court noted that there is no requirement on the State to make appointments after carefully reviewing the relevant rule that applies to the services. The Court outlined how a required regulation is the sole foundation for which it is necessary to fill vacancies from the Additional List. The choice to replace every vacancy from the Additional List is up to the State’s judgement in the absence of such a mandate. The state, however, shall be subject to court scrutiny and is not permitted to act arbitrarily. Because of this, the Court determined that the High Court erred in presuming that a right to be appointed on the basis of Entry 66 in the Schedule to the 1967 Rules existed based on the facts of the case.
The Court held that the Additional List’s operation, which is to be published in the official Gazette, will depend on the time specified in the Rule and not on the knowledge of specific candidates after the High Court determined that the Respondent was not aware of the resignation of the appointed candidate. As a result, the High Court erred when it ordered the State to implement the Additional List and name the respondent within three months of the order’s date.