RAKHI RAY & ORS.

v.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 1133-1135 of 2010)

FEBRUARY 01, 2010

[K.G. Balakrishnan CJI., Deepak Verma and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.]

2010 (2) SCR 239

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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 Sultan’s 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