The Supreme Court has ruled that in cases where a selected candidate joins and subsequently resigns, the vacancy must be filled through a fresh selection process rather than being filled from the previous merit list
On September 21, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that a candidate who has successfully qualified in a selection process cannot be appointed to fill a vacancy resulting from the resignation of another selected candidate. The Court emphasized that when a selected candidate joins and subsequently resigns, it creates a new vacancy that must be filled through a fresh selection process.
A division bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal further clarified that merely qualifying in the selection process does not grant an applicant an absolute right to appointment.
The case involved an applicant who had applied for direct recruitment to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service based on a 2007 notification from the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Fourteen general category positions were advertised for direct recruitment.
The appellant's grievance was that, despite successfully passing the written test and interview and being among the top 14 general category candidates, they were not appointed. Instead, the first 13 candidates were appointed in order of merit.
The appellant argued that while selection alone does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, their right to appointment should not be denied arbitrarily.
The respondents contended that they did not act arbitrarily in denying the appellant's appointment. They explained that initially, 14 general category vacancies were advertised, out of which 5 seats were filled by absorbing Fast Track Court judges as per certain directions. Meanwhile, 20 fresh vacancies emerged, and only 13 candidates, including the first 13 in the merit list, could be appointed through direct recruitment from the Bar.
The Supreme Court held that the reasoning provided by the respondents demonstrated that they had not acted arbitrarily, and therefore, it refused to interfere with the High Court's decision. The Court concluded that the appointments were justified and fair.
The appellant also argued that, since one of the appointed candidates had resigned after joining, the vacancy could have been filled by adjusting their appointment. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that a fresh vacancy arises when a selected candidate resigns, requiring a new advertisement and selection process.
Finally, the Court noted that the selection process had been initiated in 2007, and a considerable amount of time, 16 years, had passed since then. It considered it unjust to keep the selection process open for such an extended period and declined to direct any appointment based on a selection process initiated so long ago.
Advocate Rakesh Dahiya represented the appellant, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran represented the respondents, and Advocate Monika Gusain represented the State of Haryana in this case titled "Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. The State of Haryana & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10861 of 2013."