The courtroom was fairly packed when the Supreme Court took up the appeal by a Scheduled Caste candidate challenging Cochin University’s refusal to appoint her from a valid wait list. The case, though rooted in a single post of Associate Professor in Chemistry, raised a wider question many aspirants quietly worry about - does being next in the rank list really guarantee an appointment if a selected candidate resigns? On Thursday, the Court gave a clear answer, siding with the university.
Background
The dispute began with a 2019 recruitment notification issued by Cochin University of Science and Technology for one post of Associate Professor in Inorganic Chemistry, reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. After the selection process, Dr Anitha C. Kumar was ranked first and appointed, while Radhika T., the appellant, stood second on the rank list.
Read also:- Supreme Court Overturns Telangana High Court Orders, Says Expired Driving Licences Break Eligibility for Police Driver Recruitment Posts
Things took a turn in March 2022 when Dr Anitha resigned after securing a job at another university. Radhika then approached the university, saying she should be appointed since the rank list was still valid for two years under the university law. The university, however, rejected her claim, stating that the new vacancy had to be filled following communal rotation - which, at that stage, favoured a Latin Catholic/Anglo-Indian candidate.
Multiple rounds of litigation followed in the Kerala High Court, but Radhika lost each time. She then moved the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The bench, led by Justice N.V. Anjaria, examined two key provisions of the Cochin University Act. One keeps the rank list alive for two years. The other mandates communal rotation across departments. The core issue was how these two should work together.
Read also:- Supreme Court quashes ESI demand against Carborandum Universal, says Section 45A can’t replace proper adjudication when records
The Court noted that while a rank list remains valid, it does not override reservation rules. “The rank list prescribes the life span of selection, but communal rotation governs how appointments are actually made,” the bench observed.
Importantly, the judges rejected the argument that rotation should be kept on hold until the rank list expires. Doing so, they said, would make the reservation rule meaningless during those two years. The Court also brushed aside the earlier claim that the resigned professor still held a lien on the post, calling that reasoning legally incorrect.
In simple terms, once the Scheduled Caste post was filled and the appointee served before resigning, the reservation was already satisfied. Any fresh vacancy had to follow the next turn in the rotation.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Award Against BALCO, Says High Court Overstepped Limits
Decision
Dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court’s rulings and confirmed that Cochin University acted lawfully in applying communal rotation instead of appointing the next wait-listed candidate. The bench concluded that both provisions of the law must operate together, not one at the cost of the other, and closed the matter without imposing costs.
Case Title: Radhika T. vs Cochin University of Science and Technology & Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10079–10080 of 2025)
Case Type: Civil Appeal (Service / University Appointment Matter)
Decision Date: 18 December 2025
