Vacancies created by resignation after appointment must be filled via fresh recruitment, not from a waitlist.

JUDGMENT :

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

1. The petitioner has sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court to seek her appointment on the seat, which has fallen vacant after resignation of an appointee of the Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2022, in accordance with Rule 18 (vii) of Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970.

2. The facts of the case would lie in a narrow compass, in as much as it is noted from the petition that the respondent had invited applications for filling up 123 vacancies in Delhi Judicial Services, vide Notification dated 24.02.2022 by conducting the Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2022.

3. The petitioner applied for the aforesaid DJS Examination, 2022 and after successfully qualifying the preliminary and mains examination, appeared for the interview. Upon declaration of the final results on 24.03.2023, the petitioner secured the 93rd rank. The selection committee prepared a list of 301 candidates in order of merit, which included the names of the recommended and waitlisted candidates. Out of the said total list, 110 candidates were selected and recommended for appointment and the break-up of the seats reveal that about 85 seats were recommended under the unreserved category, 03 seats for Persons with Disabilities in the General category, 06 seats for Schedule Caste category and 16 seats were recommended under the Schedule Tribe category.

4. As aforesaid, a total of 88 candidates from the general category were offered appointment and as such the petitioner was placed at serial no.5 in the waitlist of the unreserved category. It is available from records that out of the total 88 candidates, who were offered appointment, 4 candidates did not join, thereby leaving 4 vacant seats. Thus, 4 candidates from the waiting list were offered appointment in respect of those vacant posts and after the initial formalities concluded, the candidates joined on 20.03.2024.

5. Subsequently, out of those 4 candidates, one Ms. Riya Goyal (a General category candidate, who was placed at serial no.3 of the wait-list) and having been appointed as a member of Delhi Judicial Services vide Notification of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi F.6/6/2022- Judl./Suptlaw/519-525 dated 23.02.2024, tendered her resignation from Delhi Judicial Services on 26.03.2024 on account of her selection and subsequent appointment in the Punjab Judicial Services. The resignation of Ms. Riya Goyal was accepted by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide Notification F.6/6/2022-Judl./P.F1/Suptlaw/ 1015-1021 dated 10.05.2024, and she was relieved from her duties on 17.05.2024 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Delhi.

6. As the petitioner became aware of the resignation of Ms. Riya Goyal (one of the waiting list candidates), the petitioner sent a representation to the Registrar via e-mail dated 28^th of March, 2024, seeking appointment against the vacancy arising due to the resignation of Ms. Riya Goyal. Upon not receiving a reply to the said representation the petitioner has approached this Court.

7. Mr. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner, being next in the waitlist, is entitled to be appointed against the vacancy arising out of Ms. Riya Goyal’s resignation and that the entire purpose of publishing a waiting list is that if in case any vacancy arises, either by non-joining of any candidate or by resignation of any candidate during the training period, it shall be filled up by the next candidate in the order of merit in the wait list.

8. According to the Learned Sr. Counsel, as per the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970, the select list prepared for all the categories of candidates continued to be valid till next select list is prepared and since the select list is still valid, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed against the vacant post. It has been submitted that there is no express bar