Gagandeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
Background
The appellant, ranked No. 3 on a select list for District Programme Officer under the reserved Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh category, sought appointment after the person originally appointed to that reserved vacancy (one Gurpreet Singh) resigned a year into the job. The State rejected his claim, arguing the reserved "point" was consumed once an appointment had been made against it, and that the vacancy would need to be re-advertised; this view was upheld by both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellant relied on a 1996 government instruction stating that a reserved-category point vacated by resignation is not treated as "consumed" and must instead be filled from the existing select list in order of seniority.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the State's "consumed point" argument could not be accepted because it would defeat the entire purpose of the 1996 instruction, which left the department no discretion in the matter: a vacancy arising before the select list expired had to be filled from that very list. Since the vacancy had arisen in 2014, before the next selection began in 2016, and the State itself confirmed the Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh reserved slot remained unfilled and available, the Court directed the State to make the appointment from the 2012 merit list within two months, noting that if the person ranked above the appellant (No. 2) was not interested, it would naturally go to the appellant. It clarified that the appointee would get seniority only from the date of actual appointment, and made no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
A reserved-category vacancy that falls vacant through resignation before a select list expires is not treated as permanently "used up": authorities must fill it from the existing merit list rather than re-advertising, and employees have a legitimate expectation to be considered in order of their rank on that list.