Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 12-05-2016 in case of petitioner name Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr. vs State of Punjab & Ors.
| |

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Appointment in Punjab Judicial Services Due to Exhausted Select List

Updated on

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., addressed a significant issue regarding appointments in the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch). The appellants sought appointments based on vacancies created due to non-joining candidates from an earlier selection process. The Court ruled that the select list was exhausted and the appellants had no legal right to claim those vacancies.

Background of the Case

In 2007, the Punjab Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for filling up 52 posts in the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch). The breakdown of vacancies was as follows:

  • 27 posts for General Category
  • 25 posts for Reserved Categories, including:
    • 3 for Ex-servicemen
    • 2 for Physically Handicapped
    • 10 for Scheduled Castes
    • 3 for Scheduled Caste Ex-servicemen
    • 5 for Backward Classes
    • 1 for Backward Class Ex-servicemen
    • 1 for Sports Person

The selection process involved a preliminary examination on May 27, 2007, a main examination from July 20-22, 2007, and a viva voce from November 28-30, 2007. The final result was declared on December 1, 2007.

Following the selection, 27 candidates from the general category, 10 from scheduled castes, and 5 from backward classes joined the service. However, eight posts from the reserved category remained unfilled and were later de-reserved, allowing seven additional general category candidates and one backward class candidate to be appointed.

Three selected candidates, Sumit Garg, Vijayant Sehgal, and Yogesh Chaudhary, did not join, leading the appellants, who were ranked lower on the merit list, to request appointments in their place.

Key Legal Issues

  • Whether candidates from the merit list had a legal right to claim appointments when higher-ranked candidates did not join.
  • Whether the Punjab Government’s policy regarding judicial appointments allowed for further appointments beyond the advertised posts.
  • Whether the non-joining of selected candidates created a new vacancy or if the select list was exhausted.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners’ (Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr.) Arguments:

  • Their names were in the select list, and they had cleared all selection stages.
  • Since three selected candidates did not join, those positions should be offered to them.
  • The Administrative Committee initially recommended their appointments.

Respondents’ (State of Punjab) Arguments:

  • The advertised posts were already filled with 31 general category candidates.
  • The select list was exhausted, and the appellants had no automatic right to appointment.
  • The Supreme Court’s ruling in an earlier case (Sidhu scam) mandated appointments for candidates from earlier selection years, reducing available vacancies.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Court examined whether the appellants had a legal right to appointment based on non-joining candidates and whether additional appointments beyond the advertised posts were justified.

Observations of the Court:

  • The select list only provided eligibility; it did not guarantee an appointment.
  • Appointments beyond the notified vacancies would violate the equal opportunity principle under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
  • The Administrative Committee’s recommendation was subject to the availability of vacancies, which had already been exhausted.
  • Judicial precedent dictated that vacancies arising after the selection process should not be filled from an expired select list.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled:

  • The select list had been exhausted, and the appellants had no right to claim the unfilled positions.
  • Appointments beyond the advertised vacancies would be illegal and set a wrong precedent.
  • The appeal was dismissed with no further directions for appointment.

Key Takeaways

  • No Automatic Right to Appointment: Being on the merit list does not guarantee a job.
  • Exhausted Select List: Once notified vacancies are filled, further appointments are not permitted.
  • Judicial Oversight on Recruitment: Courts ensure fairness and adherence to advertised vacancies.

This ruling clarifies that judicial appointments must strictly follow advertised positions and that vacancies due to non-joining candidates do not automatically go to those lower on the merit list.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kulwinder Pal Singh vs State of Punjab & Or Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 12-05-2016-1741860789545.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by T.S. Thakur
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category

Similar Posts