Service Law – Appointment against reserved vacancy – Right to – Appellant belonging to the reserved category of Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh was at no.3 in the select list for appointment to the post of District Programme Officer – One ‘GS’ appointed against the reserved vacancy for Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh, resigned after a year – Writ petition filed by the appellant contending that in terms of the instructions issued by the Department, the vacancy created should be filled up by the next available person from the same community and the no.2 candidate not being interested, the appellant should be appointed – Department contended that once the appointment was made, the reserved point was consumed, hence the appellant cannot be considered – Writ petition dismissed – Held: No candidate has a vested right for appointment – But at the same time, the appointing authority cannot frustrate the whole purpose of preparation of a select list – If a vacancy had arisen before the expiry of the select list, going by the instructions, the next available candidate in the select list had a legitimate expectation for being considered for appointment – Vacancy had arisen in 2014 before the commencement of fresh selection in 2016 – Even for the subsequent selection, the post reserved for Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh was not notified – Therefore, the slot reserved for Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh was still available and as per the instructions, the State has to fill up that vacancy from the reserved community from the merit list – In case No. 2 is not interested, naturally it will go to the appellant – Respondents to make appointment in respect of Valmiki/Majbhi Sikh from the merit list published on 20.06.2012 – Doctrine/Maxims – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 No candidate has a vested right for appointment. But at the same time, the appointing authority cannot frustrate the whole instruction behind and purpose of preparation of a select list. If a vacancy had arisen before the expiry of the list, going by the instruction, the next available candidate in the select list had a legitimate expectation and claim for being considered for appointment. The vacancy had arisen in 2014 before the commencement of fresh selection in 2016. Even for the subsequent selection, the post reserved for Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh was not notified. The reservation is for other Scheduled Castes. The slot reserved for Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh is still available and as per the instruction, the same has to be filled up from the merit list. The State pointed out that appellant was not the next person for consideration. It is one ‘MS’ (No.2) and he had also given a representation. Since the slot is available, the State has to fill up that vacancy from the reserved community from the merit list. In case No. 2 is not interested, naturally it will go to the appellant. [Para 4][353-G-H; 354-A-C]
1.2 The respondents are directed to make appointment in respect of Valmiki/Majbhi Sikh from the merit list published on 20.06.2012. Needful be done within a period of two months. [Para 5][354-C-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.