IMPORTANT POINT
Appointments in public service must be made strictly based on merit, even in cases of unfilled vacancies.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, therefore these are being heard and decided by this common judgment, however for the sake of brevity facts of SPA No.39 of 2023 alone are being considered and discussed.

2. Union of India has filed these appeals challenging the judgment dated 12.07.2019 rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.787 of 2018 and other 16 connected writ petitions. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is extracted below:-

“8. In view of the above, the aforementioned writ petitions stand allowed. A mandamus is issued directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners on the post of Constable (G.D) for Border District in the Central Armed Police Forces against unfilled vacancies within a period of 30 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.”

3. Writ Petition (S/S) No.787 of 2018 was filed by Sumit Kumar seeking the following substantive reliefs:-

“(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare result/selection on all vacant advertised posts of the “CONSTABLES (GD) in CRPF, NIA & SSF and RIFLEMAN (GD) in ASSAM RIFLES EXAM-2015”.

(ii) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to select the petitioner against vacant advertised post of constable in CONSTABLES (GD) in CRPF, NIA & SSF and RIFELMAN (GD) in ASSAM RIFLES EXAM-2015 being qualified as per merit and medically found fit.

(iii) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to select the petitioner against vacant advertised post for border district candidates or any other vacant post of constable in CONSTABLES (GD) in CRPF, NIA & SSF and RIFLEMAN (GD) in ASSAM RIFLES EXAM, 2015.”

4. In a nutshell, case of Sumit Kumar was that he participated in a selection for appointment to the post of Constable (G.D.) in Central Armed Police Forces. The said selection was held by Staff Selection Commission and selection process was set in motion by advertisement dated 24.01.2015. By the said advertisement total 64066 vacancies, on the post of Constable (G.D.) in different Central Armed Police Forces were advertised. Out of those 64066 vacancies, 710 vacancies were earmarked for candidates belonging to State of Uttarakhand. Out of these 710 vacancies, 419 vacancies were available only to candidates belonging to Border Districts of Uttarakhand namely, Pithoragarh, Chamoli, Uttarkashi and Champawat.

5. The case setup by Sumit Kumar in the writ petition was that since he scored more marks than the minimum cut-off marks fixed by the Selecting Body and there were certain vacancies which remained unfilled after conclusion of selection process, therefore he was entitled to be appointed against one such unfilled vacancy however he was denied right to be considered for appointment, which is unjust and illegal.

6. The Writ Petition filed by Sumit Kumar with 16 other connected writ petitions was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 12.07.2019.

7. Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs was not a party to the writ petition, therefore it sought leave to appeal against the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge. Leave to appeal was granted to Union of India vide order dated 19.07.2023, as all Central Armed Police Forces are controlled by Ministry of Home Affairs, therefore it was necessary party in the matter.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that writ petitions were allowed by learned Single Judge by relying upon a judgement rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Patna, in the case of Pintoo Kumar Singh & others Vs. Union of India & others, in which the only direction issued to the respondents was to consider claim of the writ petitioners for appointment, against the mismatch/leftover vacancies. He thus submitted that learned Single Judge of this Court erred in issuing a positive direction to giv