GAGANDEEP SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 351 · Decided: 27-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Leave granted

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
351
GAGANDEEP SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11365 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 27, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment against reserved vacancy – Right
to – Appellant belonging to the reserved category of Balmiki/Majbhi
Sikh was at no.3 in the select list for appointment to the post of
District Programme Officer – One ‘GS’ appointed against the
reserved vacancy for Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh, resigned after a year –
Writ petition filed by the appellant contending that in terms of the
instructions issued by the Department, the vacancy created should
be filled up by the next available person from the same community
and the no.2 candidate not being interested, the appellant should
be appointed – Department contended that once the appointment
was made, the reserved point was consumed, hence the appellant
cannot be considered – Writ petition dismissed – Held: No candidate
has a vested right for appointment – But at the same time, the
appointing authority cannot frustrate the whole purpose of
preparation of a select list – If a vacancy had arisen before the
expiry of the select list, going by the instructions, the next available
candidate in the select list had a legitimate expectation for being
considered for appointment – Vacancy had arisen in 2014 before
the commencement of fresh selection in 2016 – Even for the
subsequent selection, the post reserved for Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh
was not notified – Therefore, the slot reserved for Balmiki/Majbhi
Sikh was still available and as per the instructions, the State has to
fill up that vacancy from the reserved community from the merit list
– In case No. 2 is not interested, naturally it will go to the appellant
– Respondents to make appointment in respect of Valmiki/Majbhi
Sikh from the merit list published on 20.06.2012 – Doctrine/Maxims
– Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 No candidate has a vested right for appointment.
But at the same time, the appointing authority cannot frustrate
the whole instruction behind and purpose of preparation of a select
list. If a vacancy had arisen before the expiry of the list, going by
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 351
351
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
352                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
the instruction, the next available candidate in the select list had
a legitimate expectation and claim for being considered for
appointment. The vacancy had arisen in 2014 before the
commencement of fresh selection in 2016. Even for the
subsequent selection, the post reserved for Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh
was not notified.  The reservation is for other Scheduled Castes.
The slot reserved for Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh is still available and
as per the instruction, the same has to be filled up from the merit
list. The State pointed out that appellant was not the next person
for consideration. It is one ‘MS’ (No.2) and he had also given a
representation. Since the slot is available, the State has to fill up
that vacancy from the reserved community from the merit list. In
case No. 2 is not interested, naturally it will go to the appellant.
[Para 4][353-G-H; 354-A-C]
1.2 The respondents are directed to make appointment in
respect of Valmiki/Majbhi Sikh from the merit list published on
20.06.2012. Needful be done within a period of two months.
[Para 5][354-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11365
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2017 of the High Court
of  Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 938 of 2016 (O&M).
R. K. Kapoor, Ms. Rekha Giri, Ms. Kheyali, Anis Ahmed Khan,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon,, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant was No.3 in the select list for appointment to the post
of District Programme Officer. He belongs to the reserved category of
Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh. The selection commenced with the advertisement
by the Punjab Public Service Commission on 21.12.2010. The written
examination was conducted in the year 2012. One Gurpreet Singh was
appointed against the reserved vacancy (Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh).  After
one year he resigned from the post on 25.04.2014. According to the
appellant the vacancy thus created should be filled up by the next available
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
353
person from the same community. It is also the case of the appellant that
though the appellant is No. 3 in the select list, No.2 (Manjind

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.