MANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS versus U.T. CHANDIGARH & OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 09-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 820
820
MANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS
v.
U.T. CHANDIGARH & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 1908 of 2022)
MARCH 9, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation
in Service) Act, 2006 – s.7 – De-reservation/Interchangeability of
the post of SC/ST category of Elementary Trained Teachers (ETT)
to OBC category – Held: Interchangeability can be done by the
department and not by the appointing authority – s.7 of 2006 Rules
stipulates that de-reservation of any reserved vacancy which is to
be filled up by direct recruitment or by promotion cannot be done
by the appointing authority – In case due to non availability of the
eligible candidates of any of the category, the posts remain unfilled,
the appointing authority may request to the Department of Welfare
of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes for de-reservation of
the said unfilled vacancy – The said de-reservation may be possibly
directed by the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and
Backward Classes if it is expedient in public interest after recording
satisfaction for such de-reservation – The policy letter issued by
the state government which was withdrawn but later restored makes
it clear that the instructions are not in contravention of s.7 of 2006
Rules – Service law.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: As per Section 7 of 2006 Act, de-reservation for
the reserved vacancy by the appointing authority is restricted.
The said de-reservation may be possibly directed by the
Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward
Classes if it is expedient in public interest after recording
satisfaction for such de-reservation. In the said contingency the
department shall pass an order assigning those reasons. Thus,
in the context of 2006 Act also the de-reservation or
interchangeability may be possible with a rigour to exercise such
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
821
power by the department, namely; Department of Scheduled
Castes and Backward Classes and not by appointing authority.
The Policy letter No. 1945-WG-54-17246 which was withdrawn
on 11.11.1964, later restored vide letter dated 20.06.1974 makes
it clear that those instructions are not in contravention of the
provisions of Section 7 of the 2006 Act; in fact, it is as per the
spirit of the 2006 Act. Therefore, the interchangeability of the
vacant unfilled posts of SC category may be possible due to not
having eligible candidates by the department concerned but not
by appointing authority. In the said context, the letters returned
by the Education Department in favour of the appellants to the
department concerned are not of much relevance in particular
when the department concerned have not agreed upon the request
of interchangeability of the unfilled posts of SC/ST category and
refused to accept the request of the appointing authority. [Para
20][831-A-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1908
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2020 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.24383 of 2016.
P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Tushar Bakshi,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Karan Bharihoke, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment dated 17.01.2020,
passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition
No. 24383 of 2016, whereby the aforesaid Writ Petition was dismissed
on the basis of statement made by learned Additional Advocate General
of the State of Punjab regarding the decision taken by the authorities to
re-advertise the unfilled posts of Elementary Trained Teachers (in short
“ETT”) afresh and to fill up it in accordance with law. Being aggrieved
by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.
MANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS v. U.T. CHANDIGARH &
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
3. The controversy in nutshell brought by way of suo moto PIL
registered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana pertained to inaction
of the State of Punjab in filling up of vacancies of ETT, which were
advertised vide two separate advertisements dated 08.11.2015 and
30.07.2016. In the abovesaid advertisements, total of 4500 and 2005
vacancies of ETT were notified under various categories inclusive of
SC/ST, OBC, freedom fighter, handicapped etc. respectively. After
entertaining the Public

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