Appellants denied reserved category posts after select list exhausted despite eight years pursuit and existing vacancies

The SC dismissed an appeal where appellants claimed entitlement to unfilled reserved category posts after the select list was exhausted. The Court held that illegal or mistaken benefits granted to others do not confer equal rights on appellants. Despite appellants pursuing the matter for eight years and existing vacancies, the Court ruled that appointments to additional posts would disadvantage candidates who became eligible after the original application deadline. The HC correctly determined that more candidates than advertised vacancies had already joined, negating appellants' legal right to remaining unfilled posts. The judgment required no interference under Article 136.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legal right to claim appointment for unfilled posts.
2. Validity of de-reservation of posts.
3. Indefeasible right to appointment from the select list.
4. Impact of previous litigation (Sidhu scam case) on current vacancies.
5. Application of Article 14 regarding negative equality.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legal Right to Claim Appointment for Unfilled Posts:
The appellants argued that they should be appointed to the vacancies left unfilled due to non-joining of three candidates. The High Court dismissed this claim, stating that the appellants have no right to be appointed against these vacancies as the select list was exhausted once the advertised posts were filled. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that merely being on the select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.

2. Validity of De-reservation of Posts:
The appellants contended that the High Court erred by considering the issue of de-reservation, which was not initially raised. The Supreme Court examined the de-reservation of eight posts initially reserved for specific categories. It was found that de-reservation of one post for the Scheduled Caste category violated Section 7 of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. The Court upheld the High Court's decision that the de-reservation was improper, except for categories where no statutory prohibition existed.

3. Indefeasible Right to Appointment from the Select List:
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that inclusion in a select list does not guarantee an appointment. Citing precedents like Food Corporation of India v. Bhanu Lodh and State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda, the Court maintained that the select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for filling vacancies as and when they arise. The Court emphasized that the decision not to appoint from the select list must be based on valid reasons and should not be arbitrary.

4. Impact of Previous Litigation (Sidhu Scam Case) on Current Vacancies:
The Supreme Court noted that the vacancies from 2007-2008 were consumed by the appointment of candidates from the Sidhu scam case, as per the Supreme Court's directive. This adjustment was necessary to comply with the Court's order and was not arbitrary. The Administrative Committee's decision in this regard was based on factual circumstances and was upheld.

5. Application of Article 14 Regarding Negative Equality:
The appellants argued for equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution, suggesting that they should benefit from the same de-reservation that allowed other candidates to be appointed. The Court rejected this argument, stating that Article 14 does not perpetuate illegality or negative equality. The Court cited State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma, emphasizing that mistakes in appointments do not confer rights on others to claim similar benefits.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the appellants had no legal right to claim the unfilled posts. The decision to not appoint the appellants was based on valid reasons, including compliance with previous Supreme Court directives and statutory provisions. The judgment emphasized that select lists do not guarantee appointments and that de-reservation must comply with statutory requirements. The Court also clarified that Article 14 does not support claims based on negative equality.

---