“Fill unfilled vacancies of SSB, CAPFs due to non-joining of candidates from reserved list”: Delhi High Court to Centre
The division bench was hearing a slew of petitions filed by candidates who scored higher than the cutoff but were not appointed. They sought direction to the Centre to issue instructions to fill the remaining or unfilled vacancies in SSB and CAPFs on the basis of merit.
The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to fill the unfilled vacancies in the Sashatra Seema Bal (SSB) and the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) due to the non-joining of selected candidates and leftover seats from the reserved list.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ordered, “We direct the respondents to fill the unfilled vacancies having arisen due to non-joining of candidates as well as leftover seats for the examination of the year 2016 conducted by the Sashatra Seema Bal and examination of the year 2018 conducted by the CAPF; in order of merit, category and domicile of the candidates; who meet the criteria mentioned in the respective advertisements, if not already filled.”
“The respondents shall ascertain such candidates and offer them appointment within four weeks of passing this judgment with notional seniority but without back wages”, the division bench added.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by candidates who scored above the qualifying marks but were not appointed. They sought directions to the Centre to fill the remaining or unfilled vacancies based on merit.
In 2016, an advertisement invited applications for 872 posts of Sub-Inspector, Assistant Sub-Inspector, and Head Constable in Sashatra Seema Bal, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The selection process consisted of three stages: a physical test, document verification, and a written examination, with a minimum qualifying mark of 50%.
The examination result was announced three years later, in 2019, and many candidates were unable to join the department due to the excessive delay in completing the recruitment process. Those petitioners who scored higher than the qualifying mark of 50% but were not appointed approached the High Court, seeking to fill up unfilled vacancies.
The petitioners stated that out of the 746 vacancies, 674 vacancies were filled and 72 vacancies were pending for the post of Head Constable. Similarly, in 2018, an advertisement was published to hold an open examination for the position of Constables in CAPFs. While the final result of this recruitment process was announced in January 2020.
The petitioners claimed that out of 60,210 Constable (GD) positions in CAPF, 54,411 candidates were provisionally selected and the remaining positions were left vacant.
The petitioner candidates contended that if the Centre issues a new advertisement to conduct the same examination, it will cause serious harm to them if the remaining vacancies are advertised again.
On perusal of the advertisements, the division bench noted that it is quite descriptive about the vacancies and the selection process, but it is silent on the issue of leftover vacancies in the event of candidate non-joining as well as unfilled vacancies.
“These advertisements/Notice nowhere mention that in the eventuality of non-filling of vacancies; whether any waitlist/ select list of the candidates on the basis of their merit will be prepared and considered”, the bench said.
The court stated that in the present case, there are not only vacancies due to the non-joining of candidates in various categories, but also a few seats were left unfilled during the selection process.
Conclusively, the court held, “…we find that it would not only be in favor of meritorious candidates to get appointments against the unfilled seats, due to non-joining of candidates as well as left-over vacancies; but also in the interest of respondents to prevent them to undergo an exhausting and laborious recruitment process of vacancies pertaining to the year 2016 and 2018.”
“It has already been held that mere selection does not give an indefeasible right to a candidate for appointment; however, it has also been held that if the posts advertised are lying vacant, appointments can be made through wait/panel list and in the absence of panel list/ wait list, any seat lying vacant due to non-joining of a candidate or leftover vacancy, can also be filled from candidates who meet the selection criteria”, the court added.
Case Title: Subhash Chillar and Others v. Union of India & Anr. (batch of petitions)