The State is not legally obligated to fill vacant posts if it deems unnecessary, even in the presence of qualified candidates; vacancies do not create rights to appointments.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. On 27th May, 2021, when these petitions came up before us for admission, inter alia the following order was passed:

"3. The petitioner in both of these petitions was a candidate in the examination notified on 3rd March, 2018 for recruitment of Sub Inspectors in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and for recruitment of Assistant Sub Inspectors in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). These petitions have been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents CISF to "grant the vacancies for the post of Sub Inspectors in Central Industrial Security Force" against the vacancies of the year 2018, under the applicable Recruitment Rules".

4. It is the case of the petitioners, that (i) in the Notification dated 3rd March, 2018, though the tentative vacancies in Delhi Police and other CAPFs were notified but against vacancies of Sub Inspectors as well as Assistant Sub Inspectors in CISF it was mentioned "vacancies will be intimated later"; (ii) at the time when the candidates were to exercise option of the force also, no opportunity to opt for CISF was given; and, (iii) the petitioners have qualified in the examination and as per their marks/rank in the result of the examination, are likely to get CISF as Sub Inspectors, which is their first choice, but are being prevented therefrom for the reason of CISF having not notified the vacancies.

5. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner/petitioner appearing in person, under which law can the respondents No. 1 and 3 CISF, even if have vacant posts, be compelled to fill up the same. As per our understanding, no direction to the government/governmental agency to fill up the vacant positions can be issued. Reference in this regard can be made to State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Kumar Rawat, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 268, Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, Government of Orissa Vs Haraprasad Das, (1998) 1 SCC 487 and Subha B. Nair Vs State of Kerala, (2008) 7 SCC 210.

6. The counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 3069/2021 seeks time to study.

7. The petitioner appearing in person in W.P.(C) 5154/2021 refers to the Recruitment Rules and contends that though CISF has filled up vacancies of the post of Sub Inspector, required under the Recruitment Rules to be filled up by promotion but has not filled up the vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment.

8. We have enquired from the petitioner in person in W.P.(C) 5154/2021, whether it is his case that the vacancies of post of Sub Inspector have been filled up in excess of quota thereof to be filled up by promotion.

9. The petitioner in person states that it is not his case.

10. Even if vacancies of the post of Sub Inspector in excess of the promotion quota have been filled up, the question would still arise whether the petitioners who are still not in service of CISF, have a cause of action to challenge the same.

11. It is deemed appropriate to grant an opportunity.

12. List on 3rd June, 2021.

13. The respondents may file counter affidavits and documents before that date."

2. The counsels for the respondents in both the petitions, on enquiry state that counter affidavits in both the petitions have been filed. In the counter affidavit filed in WP(C) 5154/2021, it is stated (i) that the projection/calculation of vacancies in the rank of Sub-Inspector (Executive) (SI/Exe) to be filled through the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) Exam of the year 2018 was NIL, from the beginning of the said recruitment, because of abolition of 1358 posts of SI/Exe during Cadre Review approved by the Minist