Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
Rakhi Ray & Others
Versus
The High Court of Delhi & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. .......... Of 2008 in CC 14852-14854/2008)
Decided on : 01-02-2010
(1992) Supp 3 SCC 84; (1994) Supp 2 SCC 591; 1986, AIR 1994 SC 736; (1996) 4 SCC 319; AIR 1996 SC 976; AIR 1998 SC 18; AIR 1995 SC 1088; AIR 1998 SC 1021; (2001) 10 SCC 237; (2005) 4 SCC 148; (2006) 3 SCC 330; AIR 2007 SC 3242; AIR 2001 SC 2900; AIR 2009 SC 747 – Relied upon
(b) Service Law – Appointment – Should be made strictly in accordance with statutory rules – In absence of statutory Rules, directions of Court like in Malik Mazhar Sultan should be followed – Instantly, appointments governed by Delhi High Court Judicial Service Rules, 1970 – Vacancies to be advertised after determination – Malik Mazhar Sultan does not apply. (Para 24)
AIR 1993 SC 2493; AIR 2002 SC 1752; (2003) 9 SCC 592 – Relied upon
(2007) 2 SCALE 159; AIR 2008 SC 2103 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
In order to fill up 20 vacancies in the cadre of District Judge in Delhi, the High Court of Delhi issued an advertisement. Out of these 20 vacancies, 13 were to be filled up from the General Category candidates; 3 from Scheduled Castes; and 4 from Scheduled Tribes. Appellants who belong to General Category, faced the selection process. Appellants found place in the merit list but much below. All the 13 vacancies in the said category were filled according to the merit list of General Category candidates. However, two posts reserved for Scheduled Castes candidates and four posts meant for Scheduled Tribes candidates could not be filled up for non availability of suitable candidates.
Certain unsuccessful candidates approached the Delhi High Court. The High Court issued direction to appoint two more candidates whose names appeared at Serial Nos.14 and 15 in General Category Merit List. Hence, these appeals are for seeking directions to the respondents for offering appointment to the appellants also.
Finding of the Court:
Appointment in excess of the number of vacancies advertised would be beyond jurisdiction.
Result:
Appeals dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Appointment over and above the number of vacancies advertised is unlawful and violates constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16(1), as it amounts to arbitrary exercise of power (!) (!) .
Vacancies must be filled strictly in accordance with statutory rules; in the absence of such rules, directions from courts like Malik Mazhar Sultan should be followed, but these do not permit filling beyond advertised vacancies (!) (!) .
A waiting list is only operative for contingencies such as non-joining of selected candidates or extreme exigencies; it is not a source of recruitment for future vacancies unless specifically authorized (!) (!) .
Filling vacancies over and above those advertised, including future anticipated vacancies, is impermissible unless exceptional circumstances and a clear policy decision justify such deviation (!) (!) .
Once the advertised vacancies are filled, the selection process concludes; unexhausted merit lists or waiting lists do not confer an automatic right to appointment in subsequent vacancies that arise later (!) (!) .
Appointments must adhere to existing statutory rules and policies, and directions to amend or interpret these rules cannot override the statutory framework (!) (!) .
Changes to selection criteria during ongoing processes are generally impermissible unless statutory rules specifically permit such modifications; directions from courts are to be followed within the legal framework (!) .
Directions issued by courts for future appointments or amendments to rules are binding but do not authorize filling vacancies beyond those advertised unless explicitly provided for in statutory or policy provisions (!) (!) .
Empanelment or inclusion in a merit list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment; appointments must be made as per statutory rules, and the selection process concludes once the advertised vacancies are filled (!) .
Any appointment made outside the scope of the statutory rules or advertised vacancies is considered null and void, and courts uphold the importance of following the legal framework strictly (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance.
Judgment :
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. Applications for permission to file Special Leave Petitions are granted.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals have been filed for seeking directions to the respondents i.e. the High Court of Delhi and the Lt. Governor of Delhi to offer the appointment to the appellants on the posts in the cadre of District Judges in Delhi Judicial Service.
4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that in order to fill up 20 vacancies in the cadre of District Judge in Delhi, the respondent No.1, the High Court of Delhi, issued an advertisement dated 19.5.2007. Out of these 20 vacancies, 13 were to be filled up from the General Category candidates; 3 from Scheduled Castes; and 4 from Scheduled Tribes. Appellants who belong to General Category, faced the selection process. The result was declared on 3.1.2008. Appellants found place in the merit list but much below. All the 13 vacancies in the said category were filled according to the merit list of General Category candidates. However, two posts reserved for Scheduled Castes candidates and four posts meant for Scheduled Tribes candidates could not be filled up for non availability of suitable candidates.
5. Certain unsuccessful candidates approached the Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition Nos. 2688/2008, 2913/2008 and 3932/2008 on the ground that 13 vacancies came into existence between 29.2.2008 and 23.5.2008 i.e. during the pendency of the selection process which could have also been filled up from the said select list in view of the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors. (2007) 2 SCALE 159. The High Court disposed of all the petitions vide its judgment and order dated 3.10.2008 taking a view that only three vacancies came into existence subsequent to the date of Advertisement which could have been filled up from the said list. Out of the said three vacancies, two could be offered to General Category candidates and one to the Scheduled Caste candidate and issued direction to appoint two more candidates whose names appeared at Serial Nos.14 and 15 in General Category Merit List. Hence, these appeals are for seeking directions to the respondents for offering appointment to the appellants also.
6. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the judgment in Malik Mazhar Sultans case (supra) was delivered by this Court on 4.1.2007. A large number of directions had been issued in the said case and it also formulated the calendar for conducting the examinations for filling up the vacancies in the Judicial Service. It also provided that while determining the number of vacancies, the concerned Authority would also consider alongwith the existing vacancies, as what would be the anticipated vacancies that may arise within one year due to retirement, due to elevation to the High Court, death or otherwise, say 10% of the number of posts; and to take note of the vacancies arising out of deputation of Judicial Officers to other departments. It also provided that the select list so prepared shall be valid till new select list is published. The examination is to be conducted every year. The High Courts were directed to give strict adherence to the aforesaid schedule fixed by this Court. So far as the Delhi High Court was concerned, it was provided that the High Court would amend its calendar accordingly. In view of the above, it has been submitted that while making the advertisement, the Delhi High Court had not taken note of the anticipated vacancies which could be available during the next year. As per the direction of this Court, as 13 more vacancies came into existence, those vacancies must be filled up from the select list so prepared. As the appellants are in the select list they should be offered appointments.
7. On the contrary, Shri A. Mariarputham, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the appeals contending t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
