Supreme Court on University Recruitment: Communal Rotation Applies Despite Valid Rank List.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court held that a valid rank list does not override the statutory mandate of communal rotation in university appointments. It ruled that vacancies arising due to resignation during the currency of a rank list must be filled by applying communal rotation under Section 31(11) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986, and not automatically from the wait list. The Court emphasized the doctrine of harmonious construction to give effect to both the validity of the rank list and the reservation policy.

Background:

1. The appellant, a Scheduled Caste candidate, applied for the post of Associate Professor (Inorganic Chemistry) pursuant to a recruitment notification dated 22.10.2019.
2. The post was a single vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste, and a rank list was published on 15.02.2021, valid for two years under Section 31(10) of the University Act.
3. Dr. Anitha C. Kumar (Rank 1) was appointed, completed probation, and later resigned on 30.03.2022 after securing appointment in another university.
4. The appellant, placed at Rank 2, sought appointment from the wait list.
5. The University rejected her claim, stating that the vacancy must be filled by communal rotation, assigning it to the Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian category.
6. The appellant’s writ petition, writ appeal, and review petition were dismissed by the Kerala High Court, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations:

1. A candidate in a wait list does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment, even during the currency of a valid rank list.
2. Section 31(10) (validity of rank list) and Section 31(11) (communal rotation) must be read harmoniously, and neither provision can be rendered otiose.
3. Interpreting communal rotation as inoperative during the rank list’s validity would defeat the legislative intent and reduce Section 31(11) to a “dead letter”.
4. Once a Scheduled Caste candidate was appointed and served, the reservation stood satisfied in substance, and upon resignation, a fresh vacancy arose.
5. Such fresh vacancy must be filled strictly according to communal rotation, irrespective of the continued validity of the rank list.
6. The Court clarified that lien automatically terminates upon resignation and substantive appointment elsewhere, rejecting the University’s earlier reliance on lien as a ground.
7. The Kerala High Court decision in Narayanan v. State of Kerala was distinguished as it involved a candidate who never joined service, unlike the present case.
8. The Supreme Court reiterated that a wait list is not a reservoir for future recruitment and operates only subject to statutory reservation norms.

Decision

1. The appeals were dismissed.
2. The judgment dated 12.07.2023 in Writ Appeal No. 534 of 2023 and the order dated 13.09.2025 in Review Petition No. 1202 of 2023 passed by the Kerala High Court were affirmed.
3. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
4. Costs made easy.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Section 31(10), Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 – Validity of rank list.
2. Section 31(11), Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 – Communal rotation.
3. Section 7(2), Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 – Applicability of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules.
4. Rules 14, 15, 16, 17 & 17A, Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 – Reservation and rotation.
5. Article 136, Constitution of India – Special Leave jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1462

Case: Radhika T. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision: 18 December 2025