Communal rotation applies during the validity of a rank list and cannot be deferred merely because the wait list remains operative

The Supreme Court of India has held that the rule of communal rotation governing appointments in a university applies even during the currency of a valid rank list. The Court clarified that the existence of an operative rank list does not entitle a wait-listed candidate to appointment if the vacancy that arises must, under the applicable statutory scheme, be filled in accordance with communal rotation.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court upheld the decision of the Cochin University of Science and Technology to apply communal rotation under Section 31(11) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986, notwithstanding the continued validity of the rank list under Section 31(10).

Case Background

The appellant, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, applied for the post of Associate Professor (Inorganic Chemistry) pursuant to a recruitment notification issued by the Cochin University of Science and Technology in October 2019. The notified post was a single vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Caste category.

Upon completion of the selection process, a rank list was published on 15 February 2021, with the appellant placed at Rank No.2 and another Scheduled Caste candidate placed at Rank No.1. The rank list was to remain valid for a period of two years in accordance with Section 31(10) of the University Act.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The candidate placed at Rank No.1 was appointed to the post and subsequently completed probation. However, she resigned from service in March 2022 after securing appointment elsewhere. Following her resignation, the appellant sought appointment to the post on the basis of her position in the rank list.

The University rejected the appellant’s request, initially citing the existence of a lien in favour of the resigned candidate, and subsequently stating that the vacancy had to be filled in accordance with communal rotation under Section 31(11) of the University Act. The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court of Kerala.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, accepting the University’s contention that the vacancy arising upon resignation had to be filled by applying communal rotation. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, and the review petition was also rejected, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

The Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court identified the central issue as whether, during the validity of a rank list, a vacancy arising due to resignation must be filled from the wait list or whether the rule of communal rotation applies immediately upon the vacancy arising.

The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the continued validity of the rank list entitled her to appointment. It held that while Section 31(10) governs the lifespan of the rank list, Section 31(11) independently mandates that communal rotation be followed category-wise for appointments.

Effect of resignation and lien

The Court addressed the argument that the originally appointed candidate continued to hold a lien on the post. Relying on settled principles of service jurisprudence, the Court held that a lien stands terminated once an employee resigns and secures substantive appointment elsewhere.

Accordingly, the resignation of the initially appointed candidate resulted in the creation of a fresh vacancy. The Court clarified that this vacancy could not be treated as a continuation of the earlier appointment so as to bypass the statutory rotation requirement.

Harmonious construction of statutory provisions

The Court emphasised that Sections 31(10) and 31(11) of the University Act operate in different but complementary spheres. Section 31(10) prescribes the period for which a rank list remains alive, whereas Section 31(11) governs the manner in which appointments are to be made.

An interpretation that suspends communal rotation during the validity of a rank list would render Section 31(11) ineffective for the entire duration of the list. Such an interpretation, the Court held, is impermissible under the doctrine of harmonious construction.

Statutory Interpretation

The Court examined Section 31(10) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986, which provides that a rank list shall remain in force for two years and that vacancies arising during this period shall be filled from the list. It also examined Section 31(11), which mandates the application of communal rotation across all departments treated as a single unit.

Interpreting these provisions together, the Court held that while the rank list supplies the pool of eligible candidates during its validity period, every appointment from that list must conform to the rotation requirement. The statute does not contemplate postponing communal rotation until the expiry of the rank list.

Constitutional / Policy Context

Although the dispute arose within the framework of university recruitment, the Supreme Court located its analysis within broader principles governing public employment under the Constitution. The Court reiterated that appointments to public posts must strictly conform to the statutory rules in force and that deviations, even if seemingly equitable, are impermissible.

The Court emphasised that communal rotation is an expression of constitutional commitments to equality of opportunity and adequate representation of historically disadvantaged communities. Once such a mechanism is embedded in statute, it must be applied consistently and without interruption.

The Court clarified that administrative convenience or expectations of candidates cannot override statutory prescriptions governing reservation and rotation. Any departure from the statutory scheme would undermine the certainty, transparency, and fairness required in public recruitment.

Nature of a Rank List and Rights of Wait-Listed Candidates

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled position that inclusion in a rank list or wait list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. A rank list merely indicates the order of merit among eligible candidates and remains subject to the applicable statutory framework.

The Court held that even during the period when a rank list remains valid, appointments can be made only in accordance with statutory requirements such as communal rotation. The continued existence of the rank list cannot be used to bypass or postpone the operation of such requirements.

In the present case, the appellant’s placement at Rank No.2 did not entitle her to appointment once the vacancy that arose was earmarked, under the rotation scheme, for a different category.

Fresh Vacancy upon Resignation

A key aspect of the Court’s reasoning concerned the legal effect of resignation by the initially appointed candidate. The Court held that resignation severs the employment relationship and extinguishes any lien on the post.

As a result, the vacancy that arises upon resignation is a fresh vacancy and must be dealt with in accordance with the rules applicable at the time it arises. It cannot be treated as a continuation of the original vacancy for the purpose of making appointment from the same category.

The Court rejected the contention that the existence of a valid rank list converts a resignation vacancy into a mere extension of the original appointment process.

Rejection of the Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant contended that communal rotation should apply only at the stage of initial selection and that once a rank list is published, vacancies arising during its validity must be filled strictly from the same list without rotation.

The Court rejected this argument, holding that such an interpretation would suspend the operation of communal rotation for the entire validity period of the rank list. This would defeat the legislative intent underlying Section 31(11) of the University Act.

The Court also rejected reliance on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, holding that no expectation can arise contrary to statutory provisions.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment provides clarity on the interaction between rank list validity and reservation-based rotation in public recruitment. It affirms that statutory rotation schemes continue to apply throughout the recruitment process, including during the currency of a rank list.

For recruiting authorities, the decision underscores the need to apply reservation and rotation rules consistently, without being influenced by administrative convenience or pressures from wait-listed candidates.

For candidates, the judgment reiterates that inclusion in a rank list does not guarantee appointment and that statutory rules governing recruitment take precedence over individual expectations.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala.

The Court held that the University was justified in applying communal rotation under Section 31(11) of the Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986, to the vacancy that arose upon resignation, notwithstanding the continued validity of the rank list under Section 31(10).

Case Details

• Case Title: Radhika T. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Others
• Citation: 2025 INSC 1462
• Court & Bench: Supreme Court of India; ARAVIND KUMAR J. and N.V. ANJARIA J.
• Date of Judgment: 18 December 2025