Recruitment vacancies cannot be expanded on hypothetical de-reservation; interview zone must follow the notified posts and rules.

The High Court's direction to call 210 candidates for interview was unsustainable because it treated reserved vacancies as if they would be de-reserved, while the governing rules left any de-reservation or carry-forward decision to the competent authority. The recruitment process could not be expanded on a hypothetical assumption that additional vacancies might later be available, and the procedure adopted was internally inconsistent. The Supreme Court also noted that an earlier co-ordinate Bench decision on identical relief had not been followed or referred for larger Bench consideration, despite the rule that a co-ordinate Bench is bound by an earlier co-ordinate Bench decision unless the matter is so referred. The direction was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in directing the Commission to call 210 candidates for interview by treating the general category vacancies as 70, notwithstanding that 59 vacancies were actually available and the rules left any de-reservation or carry forward decision to the competent authority.

Analysis: The direction of the High Court proceeded on a contradictory premise. It assumed that the reserved vacancies would be de-reserved and added to the general category for the purpose of fixing the zone of interview, while at the same time recognising that the competent authority could still decide, under the relevant rules, whether to fill only the notified general category vacancies and carry forward the reserved vacancies. The recruitment process, at the stage of written examination and interview, could not be enlarged on a hypothetical assumption that additional vacancies might later become available. The direction to call 210 candidates therefore lacked a legal basis and created an internally inconsistent procedure. The judgment also noted that an earlier Division Bench decision on identical prayers had not been followed or referred to, although a co-ordinate Bench is bound by an earlier co-ordinate Bench decision unless the matter is referred to a larger Bench.

Conclusion: The High Court's direction to call 210 candidates for interview was unsustainable and was set aside. The appeals were allowed.

---