Male candidates cannot claim appointment against vacant seats reserved for women following the quashing of enabling government policy.

The Petitioner applied for the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector (Class III) following an advertisement by Respondent No. 2-Corporation

Five seats were advertised: three for the General category, one for SEBC, and one for females

The Petitioner ranked 4th in the merit list

While the General and SEBC seats were filled, the single seat reserved for a female candidate remained vacant as no meritorious female candidate was found

The advertisement, following a Government Resolution (GR) dated 01.08.2018, stipulated that if a female-reserved seat remained vacant, it should be filled by a male candidate

The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to appoint him to the said vacant seat

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to appointment against a vacant seat earmarked for a female candidate based on a provision in the advertisement that was derived from a subsequently quashed Government Resolution

administrative instructions or policies quashed by a court of law lose their legal efficacy.

The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai Ors. v. Shital Amrutlal Nishar Ors. (2021) 2 GLR 1696 quashed the Government Resolution dated 01.08.2018

This view was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court of India in Saurav Yadav Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 542

the State’s subsequent GR dated 02.09.2020 contains no provision for de-reserving female seats in favor of male candidates

The Court noted that the Petitioner could not be appointed under the General category as he stood at serial No. 4 and only three seats were available

The Petitioner’s claim to the female-reserved seat was based entirely on a condition in the advertisement rooted in the 2018 GR.

However, since the Division Bench in Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai specifically quashed that GR, the legal basis for the Petitioner’s claim was extinguished.

The Court reasoned that because the State’s current policy (the 2020 GR) does not permit the conversion of vacant female seats for male candidates, the Petitioner holds no vested right to the appointment.

The Court also took cognizance of the fact that the specific vacant seat was eventually filled by a female candidate through a subsequent advertisement.

Consequently, the law as it stood following the judicial override of the 2018 GR precluded the relief sought by the Petitioner.

The Court concluded that in the absence of a valid policy allowing for the de-reservation of female seats, a male candidate cannot claim appointment against such a vacancy.

The Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.