Radhika T. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Ors., 2025 INSC 1462 -CUSAT Act- Waiting List - Lien - Harmonious Construction

Recruitment -Waiting List - A waiting list is not a ready reservoir for the recruitment, but it is equally true that when it is made operative for a particular period under any provision, rule or circular, it has to be acted upon for the contingency when any of the selected candidate does not join or the appointee resigns. The waiting list is intended to pave way for the next ranked candidate to be appointed in such situation provided the vacancy occurs - The wait list by itself is not a source of recruitment, and that generally a candidate placed in the wait list has no vested right to invariably claim appointment therefrom, however when the wait list is made valid for a stipulated period, it would operate for such period. (Para 7.4-5)

Service Law - The concept of lien in service jurisprudence implies a right of an employee or civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he or she is appointed - The lien of an employee stands automatically terminated without requiring any formal order, once the employee gets appointed on other post. (Para 5.1)

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986- Section 31- The Rank List continues to be valid for a period of two years as per section 31(10), and within this period, every appointment made therefrom must adhere to the communal rotation mandated by section 31(11) of the University Act provided that the said vacancy stood satisfied in form and substance by the candidate for whom the said vacancy was reserved - The interpretation that communal rotation clause will come to operation only after expiration of Rank list after two years period as per section 31(10) upon which the vacancy arose would make the mandate of section 31(11) redundant and dead letter. (Para 5.5)

Interpretation of Statutes - Doctrine of harmonious construction- Two provisions of a statute seemingly in conflict or the two separate limbs in a particular provision have to be interpreted so as to avoid conflict in their operation, what is known as the construction which reduces any provision in the statute to a futility has to be eschewed- Maxim - ut res magis valeat quam pereat which means that it is better for a thing to have effect than for it to be made void. (Para 5.4) ‘(a) A construction which reduces the statute to a futility has to be avoided. A statute of any enacting provision therein has to be so construed as to make it effective and operative. (b) A statute is designed to be workable and the interpretation thereof by a court should be to secure the object unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable. (c) The courts will have to reject that construction which will defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used. (d) If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, has to be avoided which would reduce the legislation to futility, and rather bolder construction should be accepted based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. The statute must be read as a whole, and one provision of the act should be construed with reference to other provision in the same act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute (e) The court must ascertain the intention of the legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clauses to be construed but to the entire statute. (f) It should not be lightly assumed that the Parliament had given with one hand what it took away with other. (g) The provisions of one Section of the statute cannot be used to defeat those of the another unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them. Thus, a direction that reduces one of the provisions to a “useless lumber” or “dead letter” is not a harmonised construction.’ (Para 5.4.2)