Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismissed appeals by a Scheduled Caste candidate against the Cochin University of Science and Technology, which had declined to appoint her as Associate Professor in the Department of Applied Chemistry after the selected candidate resigned. The Court held that communal rotation applies even during the two-year life of a rank list, so vacancies arising within that period must be filled from the list only in the rotation turn. It further held that a waitlisted candidate gains no automatic entitlement merely because a selected appointee leaves. Since the roster turn for the resultant vacancy fell to the Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian category, the University’s refusal to appoint the waitlisted candidate was upheld.

Cochin University of Science and Technology issued a recruitment notification on 22.10.2019 for a single vacancy of Associate Professor (Inorganic Chemistry) in the Department of Applied Chemistry, described as reserved for a Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate, participated in the selection and was placed second in the rank list published by the University, which came into force on 15.02.2021 for a two-year period.

Also Read: Central Approval Mandatory For Leasing Forest Land For Agriculture Under Forest Conservation Act: Supreme Court

The first-ranked candidate was appointed, later resigned on 30.03.2022 after securing appointment elsewhere, and the petitioner sought appointment from the operative rank list. The University first declined the request on 20.04.2022 citing “lien” of the earlier appointee, and subsequently rejected it again by communication dated 16.09.2022 stating that the vacancy arising after resignation had to be filled by applying communal rotation, identifying the turn as Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian. The petitioner pursued writ proceedings before the Kerala High Court and then an intra-court appeal and review.

In contesting the refusal, the petitioner relied on the two-year validity of the rank list and the clause requiring vacancies arising during that period to be filled from the list, contending that communal rotation could not displace the next eligible candidate during the list’s currency. The University responded that wait-list placement did not confer an enforceable entitlement and that Section 31(11) communal rotation governed the category to which the post had to be offered, read with the University Act’s linkage to the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules on rotational reservation.

The Court examined the statutory framework governing appointments, particularly the provisions relating to validity of rank lists and communal rotation. It noted that the concept of lien could not be invoked once an employee resigns and secures substantive appointment elsewhere, observing that “the lien of an employee stands automatically terminated without requiring any formal order, once the employee gets appointed on other post.”

Addressing the interplay between the validity of the rank list and communal rotation, the Court recorded that “a rank list published… shall remain in force for a period of two years… and all vacancies arising during the period shall be filled up from the list so published.” At the same time, it noted that the statute mandated that “communal rotation shall be followed category-wise treating all the departments as one unit.”

The Court applied principles of statutory interpretation, stating that “a construction which reduces any provision in the statute to a futility has to be avoided,” and that courts must ensure that provisions are harmonised so that none becomes redundant. It observed that “when two sub-sections in a particular section… are to be applied and their purport is apparently irreconcilable, the attempt should be made… that neither is rendered otiose.”

On this basis, the Court held that the validity of the rank list only prescribed its lifespan, whereas communal rotation governed the manner of appointment. It stated that “an interpretation that communal rotation could be applied only after expiry of currency of rank list would result in rendering the reservation requirement… entirely otiose.”

Considering the facts, the Court noted that the initial reservation for Scheduled Caste stood satisfied when the first-ranked candidate was appointed and served before resigning. It observed that “on her resignation the vacancy arose, and at this stage section 31(11) gets attracted.” Accordingly, the vacancy had to be filled by applying the roster, and not merely by offering appointment to the next candidate in the list.

Also Read: Wedding Attendance Not A Ground For Indian-Origin Foreigner To Carry Undeclared Half-Kilo Gold Jewellery, Delhi High Court Recalls Interim Relief And Allows Customs Proceedings

The Court directed that “the appeals are dismissed and the impugned judgment and order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal No.534 of 2023 as well as the order dated 13.09.2025 passed in Review Petition No.1202 of 2023 are hereby affirmed. Costs made easy.”

“In view of disposal of the appeals as above, all pending interlocutory applications would not survive and stand accordingly disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Mohan Gopal, Senior Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Pranjal Kishore, Advocate.

Case Title: Radhika T. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1462
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10079–10080 of 2025
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice N.V. Anjaria