Facts
The Delhi High Court issued an advertisement dated 13 July 2023 for sixteen vacancies in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service through direct recruitment: three General, seven Scheduled Caste (SC), and six Scheduled Tribe (ST) vacancies.
Source reference: p.2The petitioners applied in the General category. Although nine General-category candidates were selected, the petitioners were placed at positions 3, 4 and 5 in the General-category waiting list after three candidates were appointed.
Source reference: p.2No ST-category candidate qualified in the 2023 examination.
Source reference: p.2The petitioners sought de-reservation of the six ST vacancies and their appointment against those vacancies, relying on an RTI response stating that no ST candidate had been appointed to the DHJS since 2010.
Source reference: p.3Their representation was rejected on 1 April 2024.
Source reference: p.3During the proceedings, the 2023 recruitment process was completed, a further recruitment process was conducted in 2024, and a 2026 advertisement was issued.
Source reference: p.4The 2026 advertisement contained twenty-seven vacancies, including five ST vacancies, with only four ST vacancies shown as backlog vacancies.
Source reference: p.4The petitioners had also participated in the subsequent 2024 and 2026 recruitment processes.
Source reference: pp.6–7, 9Issues
Whether the petitioners could seek de-reservation of the ST vacancies advertised in 2023 and claim appointment against those vacancies from the General-category waiting list.
Source reference: pp.2–3, 6–8Whether the ST vacancies could be de-reserved and diverted to the 2023 recruitment process, notwithstanding the policy against de-reservation in direct recruitment.
Source reference: pp.4–6, 8–9Whether the continued non-filling of ST vacancies since 2010 required their de-reservation under the principle relied upon from M. Nagaraj v. Union of India.
Source reference: pp.3, 9–10Whether subsequent recruitment processes and the reduction of the ST backlog affected the maintainability or merits of the petitioners’ claim.
Source reference: pp.6–8Law Applied
The Court applied the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 6 November 2003, which prohibits de-reservation of SC/ST/OBC vacancies in direct recruitment and requires unfilled reserved vacancies to be carried forward as backlog vacancies for subsequent recruitment years; de-reservation is permissible only in rare and exceptional Group ‘A’ cases, subject to the prescribed consultation and approval procedure.
Source reference: pp.4–6It relied on Rabindra Tiwary v. Lt. Governor, Government of NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 189, which held that a candidate has no indefeasible right to seek de-reservation, and that any vacancies subsequently de-reserved cannot be diverted to an already commenced selection process.
Source reference: p.9The Court distinguished M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 2121, observing that it concerned reservation in promotion and carried-forward vacancies under Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B), not the present issue of ST reservation in direct recruitment.
Source reference: p.10Reasoning
The Court held that the petitioners’ claim was founded on a waiting list that had ceased to operate because the 2023 recruitment had concluded and all selected General-category candidates had joined.
Source reference: p.7The petitioners had not pleaded or established how many ST vacancies from 2023 were carried forward into the 2024 recruitment, how many were filled, or how the subsequent recruitment affected the alleged backlog; moreover, candidates selected against the relevant reserved vacancies had not been impleaded.
Source reference: p.7The 2026 advertisement showed that the ST backlog had reduced to four vacancies, indicating that some previously unfilled ST vacancies had been filled and undermining the assertion of continuous non-filling since 2010.
Source reference: p.8In light of the OM and Rabindra Tiwary, the petitioners had no right to compel de-reservation or to have any de-reserved vacancies added to the 2023 selection.
Source reference: p.9Their participation in the 2024 recruitment without challenging the reservation structure, followed by their unsuccessful candidature, also weighed against reopening the completed process.
Source reference: p.9M. Nagaraj did not assist them because it did not establish a time-limit requiring de-reservation of unfilled ST vacancies in direct recruitment.
Source reference: p.10Holding
The Court held that the petitioners had no enforceable right to seek de-reservation of the ST vacancies advertised in 2023 or appointment from the General-category waiting list.
The subsequent recruitment processes, the reduced ST backlog, the bar on de-reservation in direct recruitment, and the absence of any indefeasible right to appointment defeated the claim.
Source reference: pp.8–10The writ petition was dismissed, and the pending application was disposed of.
Source reference: p.10, paras. 18–20Original Court PDF
Neeraj And OrsvsHigh Court Of Delhi And Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
