LexGURMEET PAL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. GURMEET PAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 4853 of 2018) MAY 15, 2018 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.] Judicial Service – Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007– r.7(3)(c) – Advertisement issued, inviting applications for selection to Punjab Superior Judicial Service through direct recruitment from amongst the Advocates – Appellants-candidates appeared for the written examination – On declaration of the result of the written examination, viva voce was held whereafter there was variation in the merit position of the candidates in the combined marks compared with just the written examination – Challenged by appellants – Held: When a candidate appears in an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded – Appellants not having challenged the advertisement at the relevant point of time, cannot be permitted to contend that having not made the mark in the cut off for the select list, something must be done to somehow accommodate them – No relief granted to the appellants – Constitution of India – Art.309. Judicial Service – Punjab Superior Judicial Service – Advertisement issued for selection provided for the possibility of the number of posts being subject to variation – Post advertisement one more seat became available – Impact of – Held: This would not mandate the inclusion of a post which fell vacant subsequently, nor can there be even otherwise a compulsion on High Court to necessarily expand the scope of the number of persons to be recruited. Judicial Service – Punjab Superior Judicial Service – Advertisement issued for selection provided for two seats for Ex- Servicemen – Held: Such reservation had no force of law in view of r.3, 1982 Rules carving out an exception in respect of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Service and the Punjab Superior Judicial Service – Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules,1982– r.3. [2018] 6 S.C.R. 1036 1036 A B C D E F G H 1037 Judicial Service – Punjab Superior Judicial Service – Filling up of existing and prospective vacancies – Held: No doubt every endeavor should be made to fill up the existing vacancies and prospective vacancies – However, there cannot be a blanket proposition that an advertisement is defective merely because every vacancy which existed or which is contemplated was not taken into account – A subsequent vacancy arising from an elevation to High Court can hardly be treated as in contemplation and it is always open to not even fill up a vacancy. Reservation – Right of members belonging to reserved category to be included in the unreserved category – Held: Members belonging to the reserved category, who get selected in open competition on the basis of their merit, have a right to be included in the General/Unreserved category and are not to be included in the quota reserved for the SC category. Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Non-availability of candidate under Physically Challenged category – Vacancy carried forward for the future – Propriety of – Held: Provisions of the 1995 Act are towards the social objective of accommodating people with physical disability – There is nothing wrong in carrying forward the vacancy for the future. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: A.Effect of elevation of a Judge from the category of direct advocate recruits to the High Court: 1.1 The elevation of one Justice Sabina on 12.03.2008 is a matter of fact. The submission of the appellants is that one more seat for General category became available post issuance of the advertisement and since the number of posts were subject to variation, this vacancy should be made available to the General category. It is not in dispute that the advertisement was issued prior to such elevation on 02.02.2008 and the advertisement noted the possibility of the number of posts being subject to variation. However, this would not mandate the inclusion of a post which fell vacant subsequently, nor can there be even otherwise a compulsion on the High Court to necessarily expand the scope of the number of persons to be recruited. In fact, the persons, GURMEET PAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB A B C D E F G H 1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. who may have become eligible post the advertisement would suffer a prejudice were subsequent vacant posts to be included a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.