MALKHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a practising advocate more than 21 years' standing. He applied for the post of an Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service in response to an advertisement, which was issued in June, 1985. The advertisement was in respect of four vacancies out of which two vacancies were in the general category, one was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate, and one was reserved for a Schedule Tribe candidate. The petitioner who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, applied for one of these vacancies. For the two vacancies which were reserved for general category candidates, one Mr. Malhotra and one Mr. Singh were appointed. As against the two vacancies, which were reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, three Scheduled Caste candidates were selected. No suitable Scheduled Tribe candidate was, however, available. The Select Panel was approved by the Full Court of the Delhi High Court. The three candidates on the Select Panel, in the order of merit were: (1) Padam Singh, (2) the petitioner and (3) L. D. Mual. Padam Singh who was at the head of the Select Panel was appointed against the vacancy, which was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. The petitioner who was at Serial No. 2 was not appointed in the vacancy, which was meant for a Scheduled Tribe candidate, and it was kept unfilled. There being no other vacancies, the petitioner and L. D. Mual were not given appointments.

(2.) Several vacancies have arisen thereafter, but the petitioner was not appointed. Hence he filed a wit petition in the Delhi High Court against his not being appointed. A Full Bench of the Delhi High Court has considered the case of the petitioner along with the cases of several other petitioners who had also challenged their non-appointment in respect of subsequent vacancies. In the case of the petitioner the Delhi High Court has held that he was not entitled to be appointed and has dismissed his petition.

(3.) In order to understand the claim of the petitioner it is necessary to examine the position regarding filling of vacancies in respect of Additional District and Sessions Judges from the year 1979 onwards. In 1979 there was one vacancy for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, for filling of vacancies in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service after giving due effect to reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, under Rule 22 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules 1970, reservations have to be made in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Govt. from time to time. Accordingly a roster is maintained. The vacancy in 1979 was at roster point 4, which is reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate. Since it was a single vacancy, it was treated as unreserved and it was filled by a general category candidate, Smt. Usha Mehra. Thereafter, in 1981 three vacancies arose. These vacancies were at roster points 5, 6 and 7. Since the vacancy at roster point 4 had been filled by a general category candidate, the reservation in favour of a Scheduled Tribe candidate was shifted to roster point 5. Roster point 6 was for a general category candidate. Roster point 7 was for a Scheduled Caste candidate. However, roster point 7 was treated as for a general category candidate, since out of three vacancies only one could be reserved. In other words, the three vacancies, which arose in 1981, were considered as one for a Scheduled Tribe candidate and two for general category candidates. The two roster points 6 and 7 for general category candidates were filled after advertisement. However, the vacancy, which was reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate, could not be filled since no suitable candidate was available. It was, therefore, carried forward.