Delhi Higher Judicial Services: High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Appointment Against Unfilled SC/ST Reserved Vacancies
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a candidate's plea seeking appointment as a judicial officer against the unfilled vacancies which were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination - 2022.A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the petitioner candidate does not have any indefeasible...
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a candidate's plea seeking appointment as a judicial officer against the unfilled vacancies which were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination - 2022.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the petitioner candidate does not have any indefeasible right to be appointed to the higher judicial service and that he cannot, as a matter of right, claim that the vacancies reserved for SC/ST candidates be de-reserved.
The bench dismissed the plea moved by Rabindra Tiwary, who was seeking appointment in the higher judicial service on a supernumerary vacancy. Besides seeking de-reservation of the vacancies reserved for SC/ST candidates, Tiwary had also prayed that he be considered for appointment as a person belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS). However, the advertisement did not contain reservation for the EWS category.
The final results of the interview were declared on November 10, 2022 and Tiwary was at serial number 37 in the merit list. However, he was not entitled to appointment as the selection was only for 32 vacancies for general candidates.
The counsel appearing for Tiwari submitted that the vacancies reserved for ST candidates have not been filled up for a long time and therefore are required to be de-reserved.
He also challenged the award of additional 1.5 marks to some candidates, who had earlier made a representation to the high court. One of the three unsuccessful candidates qualified in the exam after awarding of additional marks.
Denying relief to Tiwary, the bench said that even though his position in the order of merit would improve from rank 37 to rank 36 after the grant of additional marks, the same would not result in him being included in the select list of 32 candidates falling in general category.
Referring on Kulwinder Pal Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors, the bench said the Supreme Court has considered the provisions of Section 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006.
"Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act expressly provided that there would be no de-reservation of any reserved category by any appointing authority in any establishment. However, Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the said Act enabled the appointing authority to refer the vacancies to the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes for de-reservation, if the appointing authority deemed it necessary in public interest to fill up the said vacancies," it added.
The court said it is unable to accept that any order or direction is required to be issued for undertaking any exercise for de-reservation of vacancies reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes /Scheduled Tribes.
“In the event any such de-reservation of reserved vacancies is considered necessary by the respondents, on account of the same remaining unfilled over a long period of time, for want of the candidates meeting the qualifying criteria, the respondents may undertake the exercise for de-reserving such vacancies. In the event any such vacancies are de-reserved, the same would be available for being filled pursuant to the selection exercise conducted in the future. In any view, such vacancies cannot be made available for the selection process that commenced pursuant to the impugned advertisement,” the court said.
The bench also said that the vacancies, as advertised by the impugned notification, cannot be increased by diverting vacancies earmarked for the reserved category.
The court also rejected Tiwary’s contention that he was entitled to be considered for appointment as he belonged to the EWS category. The court said that the impugned advertisement did not contain any reservation for the said category.
“The petition is unmerited and, accordingly, dismissed,” the bench said.
Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha and Advocates Niraj Kumar Mishra, Manoj Jha and Parul represented the petitioner.
Advocate Avnish Ahlawat, represented the GNCTD
Dr Amit George represented the Delhi High Court.
Title: RABINDRA TIWARY v. LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 56