advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Service Matter - Whether the petitioners, whose names were included in the select list prepared for recruitment to Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) are entitled to be appointed against the posts which became available due to the resignation of two of the appointees and the unfilled posts of reserved categories is the question which arises for consideration in these petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.= once the appointments are made against the advertised posts, the select list gets exhausted and those who are placed below the last appointee cannot claim appointment against the posts which subsequently become available. = “At the outset it should be noticed that the select list prepared by APSC could be used to fill the notified vacancies and not future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement was only for 27 posts, the State cannot appoint more than the number of posts advertised, even though APSC had prepared a select list of 64 candidates. The select list got exhausted when all the 27 posts were filled. Thereafter, the candidates below the 27 appointed candidates have no right to claim appointment to any vacancy in regard to which selection was not held. The fact that evidently and admittedly the names of the appellants appeared in the select list dated 17-7-2000 below the persons who have been appointed on merit against the said 27 vacancies, and as such they could not have been appointed in excess of the number of posts advertised as the currency of select list had expired as soon as the number of posts advertised are filled up, therefore, appointments beyond the number of posts advertised would amount to filling up future vacancies meant for direct candidates in violation of quota rules. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to claim any relief for themselves. The question that remains for consideration is whether there is any ground for challenging the regularisation of the private respondents.” In view of the above noted legal position, the decision taken by the High Court not to enter the petitioners name in the register to facilitate their appointment against the de-reserved posts or the posts vacated by the general category candidates cannot be faulted, more so because the State Government had already approved fresh recruitment and the Commission issued advertisement for 71 posts including 6 reserved category posts. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40643
                                                      Non-Reportable

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION



                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 73 OF 2013


Raj Rishi Mehra and others                   ...Petitioners

                       versus

State of Punjab and another                  ...Respondents


                                    WITH


                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 77 OF 2013



                                  O R D E R


      Whether the petitioners, whose names were included in the select  list
prepared for recruitment to  Punjab  Civil  Service  (Judicial  Branch)  are
entitled to be appointed against the posts which  became  available  due  to
the resignation of two of the appointees and the unfilled posts of  reserved
categories  is  the  question  which  arises  for  consideration  in   these
petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
    The Punjab Public  Service  Commission  (for  short,  ‘the  Commission’)
issued Advertisement No.1 in the  year  2011  for  holding  examination  for
recruitment to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). The break  up  of
the posts advertised by the Commission was as under:

|    |General                  |47    |               |
|    |Scheduled Castes, Punjab.|09    |               |
|    |Scheduled Castes,        |02    |               |
|    |Ex-servicemen/Lineal     |      |               |
|    |Descendent of            |      |               |
|    |Ex-servicemen, Punjab.   |      |               |
|    |Balmiki/Mazhbi Sikh,     |18    |(Backlog 08)   |
|    |Punjab.                  |      |               |
|    |Balmiki/Mazhbi Sikhs     |04    |(Backlog 02)   |
|    |ESM/LDESM, Punjab.       |      |               |
|    |Backward Classes, Punjab.|09    |               |
|    |Backward Classes,        |03    |(Backlog 01)   |
|    |Ex-servicemen/Lineal     |      |               |
|    |Descendent of            |      |               |
|    |Ex-servicemen, Punjab.   |      |               |
|    |Ex-servicemen/Lineal     |09    |(Backlog 03)   |
|    |Descendent of            |      |               |
|    |Ex-servicemen, Punjab.   |      |               |
|    |Physically Handicapped,  |04    |(Backlog 02)   |
|    |Punjab.                  |      |               |
|    |Freedom Fighter, Punjab. |01    |               |
|    |Sports Person, Punjab.   |04    |(Backlog 02)   |


       The  petitioners,  who  belong  to  general  category,  applied   for
recruitment against the general category posts. In the select list  prepared
by the Commission, the names of the petitioners were shown  at  serial  Nos.
49, 50, 51, 53 and 54.  However,  their  names  were  not  included  in  the
register meant  for  appointment  of  the  selected  candidates  because  47
candidates,  who  were  placed  above  them  were  appointed   against   the
advertised posts of general category. From the reserved categories, only  27
candidates  were  selected  and  they  were  appointed  against  the   posts
earmarked for their respective categories.
      Ms. Mohini (Serial No.31  in  the  select  list),  who  was  appointed
against a general category post, did not join and in  her  place  Ms.  Parul
(Serial No.48) was appointed. Shri Rakesh  Kumar  (Serial  No.32),  who  was
appointed against a general category post, joined the service  but  resigned
with effect from 16.7.2012. Likewise, Ms. Shikha Thakur (Serial No.35),  who
was also appointed against a general category  post,  resigned  with  effect
from 2.1.2013 and was relieved on 2.2.2013. The posts vacated by  them  were
not filled and were included in the advertisement issued in 2012.
      In the  meanwhile,  the  petitioners  submitted  representation  dated
26.4.2012 to the  Principal  Secretary,  Home  Department,  Punjab  for  de-
reservation  of  the  reserved  category  posts   for   facilitating   their
appointment. The concerned  authority  accepted  their  request  and  issued
order dated 26.9.2012 for de-reservation of 5 posts. Of these, one post  was
from  the  category  of  ex-serviceman,  two  were  from  the  category   of
physically  handicapped  and  one  was   earmarked   for   sports   persons.
Immediately thereafter, the petitioners were sent  for  medical  examination
and all of them were found fit.
      The Government of Punjab sent communications to  the  High  Court  for
the petitioners’ appointment against the vacant posts  but  the  High  Court
did not agree and vide letter dated 10.12.2012,  the  Registrar  General  of
the  High  Court  informed  the  Home  Department  that  the  names  of  the
petitioners cannot be entered in the register.
      The petitioners have now sought intervention of this Court  for  issue
of a mandamus to the High  Court  to  enter  their  names  in  the  relevant
register and to the State Government to  appoint  them  against  the  vacant
posts.  Their prayer is founded on the assertion that the  State  Government
is the sole repository of power to  deicide  whether  or  not  the  reserved
category post should be de-reserved and the  High  Court  cannot  refuse  to
enter their names  in  the  relevant  register  and  deny  them  appointment
against the de-reserved posts.  They have  pleaded  that  on  the  basis  of
examination conducted  in  2007,  7  candidates  of  general  category  were
appointed against the de-reserved posts and  there  is  no  reason  for  not
giving similar treatment to them.  Another plea taken by the petitioners  is
that they are entitled to be appointed against  the  two  posts  vacated  by
Shri Rakesh Kumar and Ms. Shikha Thakur.
      The High Court has  resisted  the  writ  petitions.   In  the  counter
affidavit filed on its behalf, the rationale of making appointments  against
the posts which were de-reserved in 2007 has been spelt out in paragraphs  3
to 10, which read as under:

           “3. It is submitted that in the year  2007,  the  Punjab  Public
           Service  Commission  vide  Advertisement  No.  05   had   issued
           advertisement for filling up the following vacancies of  PCS(JB)
           :-

|Sr.No. |Name of the             | No. of Posts      | |
|       |Post/Category           |                   | |
|       |General                 |27                 | |
|       |Ex-Servicemen, Punjab   |3                  | |
|       |Physically Handicapped  |2                  | |
|       |Punjab                  |                   | |
|       |Scheduled Castes, Punjab|10                 | |
|       |                        |(Out of these 10   | |
|       |                        |posts 50% posts    | |
|       |                        |reserved for       | |
|       |                        |Balmiki/Mazhbi     | |
|       |                        |Sikhs Punjab, if   | |
|       |                        |available)         | |
|       |Scheduled Castes,       |3                  | |
|       |Ex-Servicemen, Punjab   |                   | |
|       |Backward Classes, Punjab|5                  | |
|       |Backward Classes,       |1                  | |
|       |Ex-Servicemen, Punjab   |                   | |
|       |Sports Person, Punjab   |1                  | |
|       |Total                   |52                 | |


           4.    That vide letter dated 5.12.2007 by  the  Respondent  No.2
           the names of 42 candidates were recommended for  appointment  as
           PCS(JB), who were selected as a result of  examination  held  in
           the year 2007.

           5.    That the  State  Government  (Respondent  No.l)  vide  its
           letter dated 11.1.2008 had  requested  the  respondent  No.2  to
           enter the names of 24 candidates, who were selected on the basis
           of abovesaid examination. The State Government (Respondent No.l)
           had not intimated the answering respondent  the  reasons  behind
           not filling up the remaining vacancies lying vacant.

           6.    That under the order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the Hon'ble
           the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, the names of
           24 candidates were entered in the High Court Register  and  vide
           Respondent No.2's letter dated 18.1.2008  the  State  Government
           was  informed  accordingly.  The  State  Government   was   also
           requested to / forward the names of other candidates as per  the
           recommendation of Respondent No.2 as 37 vacancies were available
           for appointment as PCS(JB) officers.

           7.    That thereafter, the  State  Government  vide  its  letter
           dated  20.2.2008  had  forwarded  the  names  of  18  candidates
           with the request to enter the names of said  candidates  in  the
           High Court Register so that further necessary action be taken.

           8.    That under  the  orders  dated  25.2.2008  passed  by  the
           Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court,  the
           names of 18 candidates were entered in the High  Court  Register
           and  the  State  Government  was   informed   accordingly   vide
           Respondent No.2's letter dated 27.2.2008.

           9.    That  thereafter,  Punjab  Government  vide  letter  dated
           18.03.2008 had  intimated  the  answering  Respondent  that  the
           Government has decided to appoint 8 candidates from the  waiting
           list against the reserve post and requested answering Respondent
           to enter the  names  of  these  candidates  in  the  High  Court
           Register.

           10.   That Under the orders dated 18.3.2008 of Hon'ble the Chief
           Justice of Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court,  the  names  of  8
           candidates were entered in the High  Court  Register   and   the
           State  Government  was informed accordingly  vide  letter  dated
           19.3.2008.”

      As regards the 2011 advertisement, the stand  of  the  High  Court  is
that even though the names of the petitioners were included in  the  waiting
list for a period of one year commencing from 24.3.2012, they  cannot  claim
appointment against the posts which became available due to  resignation  of
the two general category candidates and the posts de-reserved by  the  State
Government vide order dated 26.9.2012. It is also the pleaded  case  of  the
High Court that in the meeting  of  the  Administrative  Committee  held  on
21.1.2013, it was resolved not to make appointments from  the  waiting  list
because the  State  Government  has  already  accorded  approval  for  fresh
recruitment against 71 posts including 6 reserved category posts.
      In a separate affidavit, the State Government  has  claimed  exclusive
privilege to decide  the  issue  of  de-reservation  of  unfilled  posts  of
reserved categories.
      Shri P.S.Patwalia, Senior  Advocate  and  Shri  Govind  Goel,  learned
counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioners  argued  that  their  clients  are
entitled  to  be  appointed  against  the  unfilled  posts  including  those
belonging to reserved  categories,  which  were  de-reserved  by  the  State
Government.  Shri  Patwalia  strongly  relied  upon  note  dated   24.3.2012
appended to the select list and argued that in view of  the  decision  taken
by the High Court to operate the waiting list,  the  petitioners  cannot  be
denied appointment  against  two  posts  vacated  by  the  general  category
candidates and 5 reserved category  posts  which  were  de-reserved  by  the
State Government.  Learned senior counsel pointed out that  the  petitioners
had filed writ petitions in January, 2013 and argued  that  they  cannot  be
denied appointment merely because tenure of the select list  ended  sometime
in March, 2013.  Shri Patwalia and Shri Goel emphasised that if the  waiting
list prepared on the basis of examination of 2007 can  be  operated  in  the
subsequent years, there is no reason why the select list  prepared  in  2011
is not being acted upon for making appointment against the vacant  posts  of
general as well as the reserved categories.
         Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing  for  the  High
Court argued that the petitioners are not entitled to be  appointed  against
the vacant posts merely because their names were  included  in  the  waiting
list.  She submitted that the posts vacated by Shri  Rakesh  Kumar  and  Ms.
Shikha Thakur will be deemed to have available in the next recruitment  year
and the same cannot be filled by appointing the candidates from the  waiting
list.  Ms. Malhotra argued that  the  exercise  undertaken  in  2007-08  for
filling up the unfilled reserved posts cannot be treated as a precedent  for
ordaining the High Court to include the names  of  the  petitioners  in  the
Register to  facilitate  their  appointment  against  such  posts.   Learned
senior counsel submitted that this Court should not  issue  a  mandamus  for
filling up the posts which became  available  due  to  resignation  of  Shri
Rakesh Kumar and Ms. Shikha Thakur and the posts which were  de-reserved  by
the State  Government  because  the  Commission  has  already  issued  fresh
advertisement.
      We have considered the respective arguments.  The rationale of  making
appointments against the  de-reserved  posts  in  2007-08  is  contained  in
paragraphs 3 to 10 of the affidavit filed  on  behalf  of  the  High  Court,
which have been extracted hereinabove.   In  paragraphs  11  to  22  of  the
affidavit, which are extracted below,  the  High  Court  has  explained  the
rationale of not following the same course.

           “11.   That  in  the  year  2011,  the  Punjab  Public   Service
           Commission vide Advertisement No. 01  had  issued  advertisement
           for filling up the following vacancies of PCS(JB) :-



|Sr.No. |Name of the Post/Category|No.of |               |
|       |                         |Posts |               |
|       |Punjab Civil Services    |110   |               |
|       |(Judicial Branch)        |      |               |
|       |General                  |47    |               |
|       |Scheduled Castes, Punjab.|09    |               |
|       |Scheduled Castes,        |02    |               |
|       |Ex-servicemen/Lineal     |      |               |
|       |Descendent of            |      |               |
|       |Ex-servicemen, Punjab.   |      |               |
|       |Balmiki/Mazhbi Sikh,     |18    |(Backlog 08)   |
|       |Punjab.                  |      |               |
|       |Balmiki/Mazhbi Sikhs     |04    |(Backlog 02)   |
|       |ESM/LDESM, Punjab.       |      |               |
|       |Backward Classes, Punjab.|09    |               |
|       |Backward Classes,        |03    |(Backlog 01)   |
|       |Ex-servicemen/Lineal     |      |               |
|       |Descendent of            |      |               |
|       |Ex-servicemen, Punjab.   |      |               |
|       |Ex-servicemen/Lineal     |09    |(Backlog 03)   |
|       |Descendent of            |      |               |
|       |Ex-servicemen, Punjab.   |      |               |
|       |Physically Handicapped,  |04    |(Backlog 02)   |
|       |Punjab.                  |      |               |
|       |Freedom Fighter, Punjab. |01    |               |
|       |Sports Person, Punjab.   |04    |(Backlog 02)   |


           12    That the  Secretary,  Punjab  Public  Service  Commission,
           Patiala was  informed  by  Respondent  No.2  vide  letter  dated
           27.3.2012 that as per the result the Committee of the High Court
           has been pleased to resolve that the first  47  candidates  from
           merit list of General Category, the  first  17  candidates  from
           merit list of Schedule Caste Category (09  vacancies  advertised
           against  this   category   plus   08   unfilled   vacancies   of
           Balmiki/Mazhbi Sikh Category),  the  first  09  candidates  from
           merit  list  of  Backward  Class  Category,  all  07  candidates
           appearing  in  merit     list     of     Balmiki/Mazhbi     Sikh
           Category,  all  candidates  appearing  in  the  merit  list   of
           Balmiki/Mazbhi  Sikh-LDESM  Category  and  Backward  Class-LDESM
           Category Candidate and the first three candidates  appearing  in
           the merit list of LDESM Category be recommended to be  appointed
           as Civil Judges (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial  Magistrates   in
             the   State of Punjab.   16 candidates next in order of  merit
           in General Category and 3 candidates next in order of  merit  in
           Backward Class Category shall remain in  waiting  list  for  one
           year from 24.3.2012.   In the event  of  any  vacancy  occurring
           within one year on account of non-joining or resignation of  any
           candidate or due  to  any  other  unforeseen  circumstance,  the
           resultant shortfall in the advertised vacancies shall be  filled
           up from the next 16  candidates in order of merit  appearing  in
           General Category  in  case  such  vacancies  belong  to  general
           category and from amongst the next 03  candidates  in  order  of
           merit appearing in Backward Class Category in case such  vacancy
           is of BC category. He was requested to prepare the  consolidated
           merit list in accordance with   Rule 8 (Part-C)  of  the  Punjab
           Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 and get it published
           in the Government Gazette as per provisions of Rule 10(i) of the
           said Rules.

           13   That the State Government vide its letter  dated  15.5.2012
           had requested the Respondent No.2  to  enter  the  names  of  83
           candidates,  who were  selected  as   a  result  of  examination
           held in the year 2011.

           14    That under the orders of the then Hon'ble the Acting Chief
           Justice, the names of 83 candidates were entered in   the   High
           Court Register and  vide letter dated  24.5.2012    the    State
           Government   was informed accordingly.

           15    That the State Government vide its letter dated  29.6.2012
           had sought the views of this Court for de-reserving_17 vacancies
           of reserve categories.

           16   That  the   above   said   letter   dated   29.6.2012   was
           placed before Administrative Committee  of  the  High  Court  of
           Punjab and Haryana in its meeting held on 31.7.2012, wherein  it
           was resolved that the Government of Punjab be informed that  the
           High Court of  Punjab  and  Haryana  does  not  agree  with  the
           proposal. However, the advertised vacancies  may  be  filled  up
           from amongst the candidates in the waiting list  as  per  rules.
           Accordingly, vide letter dated 3.8.2012 the State Government was
           informed by the Respondent No.2.

           17.   That thereafter, the State Government  vide  letter  dated
           26.9.2012,    had    intimated    that    one    post    of  Ex-
           serviceman/Lineal   Descendent   of  Ex-Serviceman   of   Punjab
           Category, two posts of physically handicapped (General Category)
           and two posts of Sports Persons (General Category) have been de-
           reserved.

           18.   That thereafter, the Under Secretary Home,  Department  of
           Home Affairs and  Justice  (Judicial-I  Branch),  Government  of
           Punjab,  Chandigarh  vide  his  letter  dated   15.10.2012   has
           requested the High Court of Punjab  and  Haryana  to  enter  the
           names of following candidates in the High Court  Register  under
           intimation to the State Government :-


|Sr.No. |Roll No.         |Name of the      |Category    |
|       |                 |Candidate        |            |
|1.     |10643            |Sh.Raj Rishi     |General     |
|       |                 |Mehra            |            |
|2.     |10623            |Ms.Pukhrajbir    |General     |
|       |                 |Kaur             |            |
|3.     |10642            |Sh.Raj Kumar     |General     |
|4.     |10375            |Ms.Kanchan Garg  |General     |
|5.     |10592            |Sh.Pawan Bishnoi |General     |




           19. That the  abovesaid  matter  was  placed  before  Judges  in
           Administrative Committee   meeting   held on 5.12.2012,  wherein
           it was resolved that the request of the Punjab     Government is
           declined.

           20. That accordingly, vide letter dated  10.12.2012,  the  State
           Government  was  informed  that  the  request dated 3.9.2012 and
           15.10.2012 with regard  to  entering  the  names   of  Sh.Munish
           Bansal,  Sh.Raj  Rishi Mehra, Sh.Pukhrajbir Kaur, Sh.Raj  Kumar,
           Ms.Kanchan Garg and Sh.Pawan Bishnoi has been declined.

           21.   That the State Government vide letter dated 21.12.2012 had
           again requested this Court  to  enter  the  names  of  Sh.Munish
           Bansal, Sh.Raj Rishi Mehra, Ms.Pukhrajbir  Kaur,  Sh.Raj  Kumar,
           Ms.Kanchan Garg and Sh.Pawan Bishnoi in the High Court Register.

           22. That the matter  was  again  placed  before  Judges  in  the
           Administrative Committee meeting held on 21.1.2013,  wherein  it
           was resolved that the Government of  Punjab  vide  letter  dated
           3.11.2012 has already approved the recruitment for 71  posts  of
           PCS(JB) by  issuing  fresh  advertisement  and  these  71  posts
           includes  the  above  mentioned  6  vacancies.  The  process  of
           recruitment  had  already   been   initiated.   Therefore,   the
           Administrative Committee reiterated its earlier  decision  dated
           5.12.2012.”




          It is true that in response to the advertisement issued  in  2007,
the State Government and the High Court made appointments from  the  waiting
list against the  posts  which  were  made  available  by  de-reserving  the
unfilled posts of reserved categories but that decision cannot be  cited  as
a binding precedent because the rules  regulating  the  recruitment  do  not
impose a duty on the appointing  authority  to  make  appointment  from  the
waiting list.  That apart, what is of immense significance is that the  High
Court has taken a conscious decision not to entertain the  request  made  by
the  State  Government  for  filling  up  the  unfilled  reserved  posts  by
appointing the candidates of general category  because  fresh  advertisement
had already been issued.
            The question whether the candidates whose names are included  in
the waiting list are entitled to be appointed against the unfilled posts  as
of right is no longer res integra and must be answered in negative  in  view
of the judgments of this Court in Union of  India  v.  Ishwar  Singh  Khatri
1992 Supp (3) SCC 84, Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association  v.
State of Gujarat and others 1994  Supp  (2)  SCC  591,  State  of  Bihar  v.
Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and  others  (1994)  1
SCC 126, Prem Singh and others v. Haryana SEB and others 1996)  4  SCC  319,
Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service  Recruitment  Board  and
others (1996) 1 SCC 283, Surinder Singh and others v. State  of  Punjab  and
another (1997) 8 SCC 488, Madan Lal and others v. State of  J&K  and  others
(1995) 3 SCC 486, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v.  Yogesh  Kumar  Gupta  and  others
(1998) 3 SCC 45, State of J&K and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others  (2005)
4 SCC 148, State of U.P. and others  v. Rajkumar Sharma and others (2006)  3
SCC 330, Ram Avtar Patwari and others v. State of Haryana and  others  2007)
10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray and others v. High Court of Delhi and others  (2010)
2 SCC 637.
            In Surinder Singh’s case, this Court observed as under:


           "A waiting list prepared in  an  examination  conducted  by  the
           Commission does not furnish  a  source  of  recruitment.  It  is
           operative only for the contingency that if any of  the  selected
           candidates does not join then the person from the  waiting  list
           may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if
           there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of
           policy decision pick up persons  in  order  of  merit  from  the
           waiting list. But the view taken by the High  Court  that  since
           the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore,  the
           candidates from the waiting list were  liable  to  be  appointed
           does not appear to  be  sound.  This  practice,  may  result  in
           depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for
           the vacancies available in future. If the waiting  list  in  one
           examination  was  to  operate   as   an   infinite   stock   for
           appointments, there is a danger that the  State  Government  may
           resort to the device of not holding  an  examination  for  years
           together and pick up candidates from the  waiting  list  as  and
           when required. The constitutional discipline requires that  this
           Court should not permit such improper exercise  of  power  which
           may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate  waiting
           list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire
           set of fresh candidates  either  from  the  open  or  even  from
           service




      In Rakhi Ray’s case, this Court  referred  to  a  number  of  judicial
precedents and held:

           “It is a settled legal  proposition  that  vacancies  cannot  be
           filled up over and above the number of vacancies  advertised  as
           “the recruitment of the candidates in  excess  of  the  notified
           vacancies is a denial  and  deprivation  of  the  constitutional
           right  under  Article  14  read  with  Article  16(1)   of   the
           Constitution”, of those persons who acquired eligibility for the
           post  in  question  in  accordance  with  the  statutory   rules
           subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies. Filling  up
           the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible
           nor desirable, for the reason,  that  it  amounts  to  “improper
           exercise  of  power  and  only  in  a   rare   and   exceptional
           circumstance and in emergent  situation,  such  a  rule  can  be
           deviated from and such a deviation  is  permissible  only  after
           adopting policy decision based on some rationale”, otherwise the
           exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of  vacancies  over  the
           notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and
           thus, is not permissible in law.”




      In State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma (2002) 1  SCC  113,  a  two
Judge Bench considered the questions as to when the recruitment process  can
be said to have come to an end and whether the select list can  be  operated
qua the posts/vacancies which become available due  to  resignation  of  the
existing  incumbent  and  answered  the  same  in  negative  by  making  the
following observations:

           “With the appointment of the first candidate for the  only  post
           in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select
           panel prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has  outlived  its
           utility and,  at  any  rate,  no  one  else  in  the  panel  can
           legitimately  contend  that  he   should   have   been   offered
           appointment either in the vacancy  arising  on  account  of  the
           subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or
           any other vacancies arising  subsequently.  The  circular  order
           dated 22-3-1957, in our view, relates to select panels  prepared
           by the Public Service Commission and not a panel of  the  nature
           under consideration. That apart, even as per the circular orders
           as also the decision relied upon for the  first  respondent,  no
           claim can be asserted and countenanced for appointment after the
           expiry of six months. We find no rhyme  or  reason  for  such  a
           claim to be enforced before courts, leave alone there being  any
           legally protected right in the first respondent to get appointed
           to any vacancy arising  subsequently,  when  somebody  else  was
           appointed by the process of promotion taking  into  account  his
           experience and needs as well as administrative exigencies.”






            In Mukul Saikia v. State of Assam (2009) 1 SCC 386,  this  Court held that once the appointments are made against the advertised  posts,  the select list  gets  exhausted  and  those  who  are  placed  below  the  last appointee cannot claim appointment  against  the  posts  which  subsequently become available. Paragraph 33 of the judgment which contains discussion  on
this issue is reproduced below:

           “At the outset  it  should  be  noticed  that  the  select  list
           prepared by APSC could be used to fill  the  notified  vacancies
           and not future vacancies. If the requisition  and  advertisement
           was only for 27 posts, the State cannot appoint  more  than  the
           number of posts advertised, even  though  APSC  had  prepared  a
           select list of 64 candidates. The select list got exhausted when
           all the 27 posts were filled. Thereafter, the  candidates  below
           the 27 appointed candidates have no right to  claim  appointment
           to any vacancy in regard to which selection was  not  held.  The
           fact that evidently and admittedly the names of  the  appellants
           appeared in the select list dated 17-7-2000  below  the  persons
           who have been appointed on merit against the said 27  vacancies,
           and as such they could not have been appointed in excess of  the
           number of posts advertised as the currency of  select  list  had
           expired as soon as the number of posts advertised are filled up,
           therefore, appointments beyond the number  of  posts  advertised
           would amount to filling up future  vacancies  meant  for  direct
           candidates  in  violation  of  quota   rules.   Therefore,   the
           appellants are not entitled to claim any relief for  themselves.
           The question that remains for consideration is whether there  is
           any ground for challenging the  regularisation  of  the  private
           respondents.”




      In view of the above noted legal position, the decision taken  by  the
High Court not to enter the petitioners name in the register  to  facilitate
their appointment against the de-reserved posts or the posts vacated by  the
general category candidates cannot be faulted, more  so  because  the  State
Government had already approved fresh recruitment and the Commission  issued
advertisement for 71 posts including 6 reserved category posts.
            In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed.



                                                 .........................J.
                                         (G.S. SINGHVI)


                                                 .........................J.
                                         (V. GOPALA GOWDA)
New Delhi;
August 13, 2013.



-----------------------
16


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.