Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., R. BANUMATHI, J.
Kulwinder Pal Singh and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5035-5036 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 23748-23749 of 2012)
Decided On : 12-05-2016
(2005) 3 SCC 618; (2001) 6 SCC 380; (1999) 5 SCC 180; (2010) 6 SCC 777; 2013 (10) SCALE 204: (2013) 12 SCC 171 – Relied upon
(b) Service law – Recruitment – Vacancies over and above number advertised – Cannot be filled up – Recruitment in excess of notified vacancies – Would amount to denial of equal opportunity to eligible candidates. (Para 14)
(2010) 2 SCC 637 – Relied upon
(c) Service law – De-reservation – Section 7, Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 – Article 16(4B), Constitution of India – Bar on de-reservation of reserved seats for SC – Seats reserved for SC/ST cannot be de-reserved – Instantly de-reservation of seven seats of Sc category rightly interfered by High Court. (Para 16)
(d) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Not envisaging negative equalities – Illegality cannot be perpetuated – Grant of benefit to some persons illegally or by mistake – Does not confer right upon appellants to claim equality. (Para 17)
(2006) 3 SCC 330 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Punjab Public Service Commission issued advertisement for filling up 52 posts of Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch). Out of 52 posts, 27 posts were for General Category; 25 posts for reserved category; 10 posts for Scheduled Castes; 03 posts for Scheduled Caste Ex-servicemen; 05 posts for Backward Classes; 01 post for Backward Class Ex-servicemen and 01 post for Sports Person.
27 candidates from general category, 10 candidates from scheduled castes and 05 candidates from backward classes were declared successful and have joined in terms of letters of appointment issued to them. Eight posts were de-reserved in respect of the remaining unfilled vacant posts. As against the said de-reserved posts, seven candidates from the general category and 01 candidate from backward classes were offered appointments. However, three candidates belonging to general category did not join the service. Resultantly, thirty one general category candidates accepted the appointment and joined service.
The appellants, who belong to general category figured in the final merit list. Since three candidates did not join service, the appellants submitted representation to the High Court for issuance of appointment orders to them. It was decided that the appellants cannot be offered appointments due to lack of vacancies.
Appellants filed writ petitions which were dismissed holding that the appellants have no right to be appointed against the vacancies falling vacant due to non-joining of three candidates of general category.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
R. Banumathi, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 13.02.2012 whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the writ petitions C.W.P. No. 20135 of 2008, C.W.P. No. 20189 of 2008 and C.W.P. No. 21746 of 2008, holding that the appellants cannot claim any legal right in respect of the posts remained unfilled as the select list stood exhausted with the joining of the candidates to the extent of posts advertised.
3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as follows: Punjab Public Service Commission issued advertisement for filling up 52 posts of Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) vide advertisement dated 07.03.2007. Out of 52 posts, 27 posts were for General Category; 25 posts for reserved category which included 03 posts for Ex-servicemen; 02 posts for Physically Handicapped; 10 posts for Scheduled Castes; 03 posts for Scheduled Caste Ex-servicemen; 05 posts for Backward Classes; 01 post for Backward Class Ex-servicemen and 01 post for Sports Person. Preliminary examination was conducted on 27.05.2007. The main examination was conducted from 20th to 22nd July, 2007. The viva voce was conducted from 28th to 30th November, 2007 and final result was declared on 01.12.2007. 27 candidates from general category, 10 candidates from scheduled castes and 05 candidates from backward classes were declared successful and have joined in terms of letters of appointment issued to them. Eight posts were de-reserved in respect of the remaining unfilled vacant posts. As against the said de-reserved posts, seven candidates from the general category i.e. candidates upto Sl. No. 34 and 01 candidate from backward classes were offered appointments. However, three candidates belonging to general category namely Sumit Garg, Vijayant Sehgal and Yogesh Chaudhary placed at Sl. No.1, 5 and 32 respectively did not join the service. Resultantly, thirty one general category candidates accepted the appointment and joined service.
4. The appellants, who belong to general category have appeared in preliminary examination and subsequently in the main examination including viva voce figured in the final merit list as they stood at Sl. Nos. 37 and 36 and Parminder Singh Grewal at Sl. No. 35. Since three candidates did not join service, the appellants submitted the representation on 02.04.2008 to the High Court for issuance of appointment orders to them. The representation of the appellants was considered in the sixteenth meeting of the Administrative Committee held on 08.12.2010 and it was resolved to recommend the names of the appellants subject to approval of the Full Court. Again the matter was considered in the eighteenth meeting of the Administrative Committee held on 06.07.2011 wherein it was decided that the appellants cannot be offered appointments due to lack of vacancies. In Punjab, there was an ongoing litigation regarding selection of the judicial officers (Junior Division) in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 (known as Sidhu scam). In the said litigation in C.W.P. No. 1626 of 2003, as per the order of the Supreme Court, twenty two candidates were to be appointed. At that time in the Punjab Judicial Service, only six posts were available and therefore sixteen temporary posts were sanctioned by the Punjab Government on 22.07.2008 with a specific condition that those temporary posts shall be adjusted against the vacancies created due to future retirements/promotions/vacancies etc. and these sixteen posts shall be abolished one by one as and when a vacancy is available. In the meeting held on 06.07.2011, the Administrative Committee took note of the order of this Court and observed that three resultant vacancies of the year 2007-2008 stood consumed with the joining of seventeen candidates of the litigation pertaining to Sidhu scam case.
5. Feeling aggrieved, appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court contending that three vacancies which remained unfilled due to non-joining of 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
