LexKULWINDER PAL SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 439
KULWINDER PAL SINGH AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5035-5036 of2016)
MAYl2,2016
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI AND R. BANUMATHI, J.]
Service Law - Appointment - Claim for - Advertisement for
filling 52 posts of Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) - Out of
52 posts 27 were General category and 25 were reserved (including
reservation of 10 posts for Scheduled Castes) - After final result of
the examination 27 candidates from General category, 10 candidates
from Scheduled Castes and 5 from Other Backward Classes were
declared successful and consequently joined service - 8 posts were
de-reserved in respect of remaining unfilled vacant posts - Against
the de-reserved 8 posts, 7 candidates from General Category
(candidates upto SI.No. 34 in the merit list) and 1 from Other
Backward Classes were offered appointment - Three candidates of
General Category since did not accept the appointment, candidates
at serial Nos. 35, 36 and 37 sought issuance of appointment against
the three vacant posts - The Administrative Committee of High Court
denied appointment taking note of the fact that pursuant to direction
of Supreme Court to appoint 22 candidates selected in the years
1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, State Government had sanctioned 16
posts to accommodate the 22 appointments (as only 6 posts were
available then) which were liable to be abolished as and when the
vacancies became available and thus the 3 vacancies were consumed
- Writ Petition - Dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: Finding
place in Select List does not give right of appointment to the
candidate - It is open to Government not to fill up the vacancies -
However, such decision of the Government should not be arbitrary
and unreasonable - As agaif!St the 27 posts of General Category
advertised, 31 candidates had already joined - It is not permissible
to fill up the vacancies over and above the vacancies advertised -
De-reservation of? posts which were filled up by General Category
candidates was also not correct - The appellants cannot claim any
legal right in respect of the posts of reserved category remaining
unfilled.as the candidates much more than the vacancies advertised,
439
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
440
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 4 S.C.R.
we.re permitted_to join.
Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Art. 14 does not envisage
negative equality - Merely because some persons are granted benefit
illegally or by mistake, it does not confer right upon the appellants
to claim equality.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well-settled that merely because the name
of a candidate finds place in the Select List, it would not give him
indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. The name of a
candidate may appear in the merit list but he has no indefeasible
right to an appointment. It is always open to the Government
not to fill up the vacancies, however such decision should not be
arbitrary or unreasonable. Once the decision is found to be based
on some valid reason, the Comi would not issue any mandamus
to Government to fill up the vacancies. [Paras 11, 12, 13) [446-E;
447-B-C)
Food Corporation of Ind{a and Ors. v. Bhanu Lodh
and Ors. 2005 (2) SCR 350 : (2005) 3 SCC 618; All
India SC & ST Employees 'Association & Anr. v. A. Arthur
Jeen & Ors. 2001 (2) SCR 1183 : (2001) 6 SCC 380
and Union of Public Service Commission v. Gaurav
Dwivedi and Ors. 1999 (3) SCR 649 : (1999) 5 SCC
180; State of Orissa & Am'. v. Rajkishore Nanda and
Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 777: 2010 (7) SCR 301; Mano}
Manu and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2013 (10)
SCALE 204: (2013) 12 sec 171:20J3 (10) SCR 8 -
relied on.
2. Twenty two other candidates were declared successful
by the Supreme Court pertaining to the selection of the years
1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 as Civil Judges (Junior Division),
they were to be accommodated, as rightly resolved by the
Administrative Committee in the meeting dated 06.07.2011. The
three resultant vacancies of the year 2007-2008 stood consumed
with the joining of the said seventeen candidates and the same
could not be filled up from the select list of that year. The decision
of the Administrative Committee observing that the three
resultant vacancies stood consumed is based on factual situation
arising there and cannot be said to be arbitrary. [Para 13) [447-
C-D)
KULWINDER PAL SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB
AND ORS.
3. The HExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.