Supreme Court clarifies procedure for filling reserved category vacancies after resignation: Gagandeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (27 November 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 27 November 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 1034
Judges: Kurian Joseph J., S. Abdul Nazeer J.
Can a reserved category vacancy, vacated due to resignation, be filled from the existing merit list or does it require a fresh advertisement? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the appointment of a District Programme Officer in Punjab. The court clarified that such vacancies should be filled from the existing merit list, ensuring that the purpose of reservation is not defeated. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Case Background

The appellant, Gagandeep Singh, was third on the select list for the position of District Programme Officer, under the Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh reserved category. The selection process began with an advertisement by the Punjab Public Service Commission on 21 December 2010. A written exam was conducted in 2012. Gurpreet Singh, who belonged to the same reserved category, was appointed to the post. However, Gurpreet Singh resigned on 25 April 2014. Gagandeep Singh contended that the vacancy created by the resignation should be filled by the next available candidate from the same community, i.e., himself, as the second candidate Manjinder Singh was not interested and did not pursue the litigation.

The Department rejected Gagandeep Singh’s claim, stating that the reserved point was consumed upon the appointment of Gurpreet Singh and therefore, the vacancy had to be re-advertised. Aggrieved, Gagandeep Singh filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed by the Single Judge, holding that he had no legal right to claim appointment and that the vacancy had to be re-advertised. An intra-court appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench as the process for subsequent selection had been initiated.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Gagandeep Singh, stating that he had no legal right to claim appointment and that the vacancy had to be re-advertised. The Division Bench also dismissed the intra-court appeal, noting that the process for a subsequent selection had already been initiated.

Legal Framework

The appellant relied on guidelines issued by the Welfare Department, specifically the instructions dated 08 April 1980 and 10 January 1996. The instructions dated 10 January 1996, stated that:

“According to these instructions, the point filled up by a candidate belonging to reserved category and subsequently vacated on account of resignation or otherwise by one of the incumbents is not considered to be consumed. This point is available for the reserved categories and is required to be filled up out of the candidates available as a result of selection in order of their seniority.”

The instructions also clarified that “… there is no discretion with the Administrative Department in this regard.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant contended that the guidelines issued by the Welfare Department, specifically the instructions dated 08.04.1980 read with subsequent instruction dated 10.01.1996, clearly state that a reserved category point, once filled, and subsequently vacated due to resignation, is not considered consumed.
• The appellant argued that the vacancy should be filled from the existing select list, in order of seniority.
• The appellant asserted that since he was next in line after the second candidate (Manjinder Singh) who was not interested, he should be appointed.

State’s Submissions:

• The State contended that the merit list had expired after the appointment of Gurpreet Singh and no one could claim appointment from such a list.
• The State argued that once an appointment is made, the reserved point is considered consumed and cannot be used again.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:
✓ Whether a reserved category vacancy, which arose due to the resignation of an appointee, should be filled from the existing select list or by a fresh selection process.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court primarily relied on the instructions issued by the Welfare Department:

• Instructions dated 08.04.1980
• Instructions dated 10.01.1996

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The instructions dated 08.04.1980 were considered as part of the legal framework.
• The instructions dated 10.01.1996 were the basis of the Court’s decision. The court held that *“According to these instructions, the point filled up by a candidate belonging to reserved category and subsequently vacated on account of resignation or otherwise by one of the incumbents is not considered to be consumed. This point is available for the reserved categories and is required to be filled up out of the candidates available as a result of selection in order of their seniority.”*

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the instructions issued by the Welfare Department to ensure that the purpose of reservation is not defeated. The court noted that the vacancy had arisen before the commencement of the fresh selection and that the slot reserved for Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh was still available. The court also considered the fact that the instructions dated 10.01.1996 specifically stated that the reserved point is not consumed and has to be filled from the merit list. The court also noted that *“there is no discretion with the Administrative Department in this regard.”*

The Court rejected the State’s argument that the merit list had expired, stating that the appointing authority cannot frustrate the purpose of preparing a select list. The Court held that if a vacancy arose before the expiry of the list, the next available candidate in the select list had a legitimate expectation and claim for being considered for appointment.

The Court stated that, “No doubt, 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.”

The Court also observed that, “If a vacancy had arisen before the expiry of the list, going by the instruction, the next available candidate in the select list had a legitimate expectation and claim for being considered for appointment.”

The Court further noted that, “Therefore, the slot reserved for Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh is still available and as per the instruction which we have extracted above, the same has to be filled up from the merit list.”

Key Takeaways

• Reserved category vacancies arising due to resignation should be filled from the existing merit list.
• The appointing authority cannot frustrate the purpose of preparing a select list.
• The instructions issued by the Welfare Department must be strictly adhered to.
• The next available candidate in the select list has a legitimate expectation to be considered for appointment.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to make the appointment for the Valmiki/Majbhi Sikh category from the merit list published on 20 June 2012, within a period of two months. The Court clarified that the appointee would get seniority only from the date of appointment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a reserved category vacancy arising due to the resignation of an appointee should be filled from the existing merit list, as per the relevant instructions, and not by a fresh selection process. This clarifies the position of law regarding filling of reserved vacancies after resignation of the appointee.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Gagandeep Singh vs. State of Punjab clarifies that reserved category vacancies arising from resignations must be filled from the existing merit list, upholding the purpose of reservation and the legitimate expectations of candidates on the select list. This decision ensures that the instructions issued by the Welfare Department are followed, and the appointing authority cannot circumvent the rules by claiming that the merit list has expired.