Delhi High Court
Ashish Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr on 21 July, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21.07.2025
+ LPA 458/2025
ASHISH KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sarvesh Singh and
Ms.Rajeshwari Mitra, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Manoj and Ms.Aparna
Sinha, Advs. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 43173/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment dated
16.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.(C) 10630/2018, titled Ashish Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.,
dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein.
3. To give a brief background of the facts in which the present
appeal arises, by an Advertisement/Notification issued in February
2015, the respondent no.2 had invited applications for various posts,
including for the post of Assistant Grade-III (Depot). A total number
of 331 vacancies were advertised in various categories and zones. The
appellant was placed in the wait list, at Serial No. 184.
4. The appellant filed the above Writ Petition contending therein
that the respondent no.2 had several vacancies for the concerned post
in the North-Zone but was not filling up the same. In support, the
appellant placed reliance on the Quarterly Zonal Statement for March
2018, which shows that the respondent no.2 had 628 vacant positions
for Assistant Grade-III, Depot Cadre for Punjab, 241 in Haryana, and
392 in Uttar Pradesh.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2
contends that out of the total number of wait list candidates, 58 were
appointed, whereafter the number of vacancies, as advertised, were
completely filled up. The respondent no. 2 further contends that the
Quarterly Zonal Statement for March 2018 shows the vacant positions
on that date, and included the vacancies that had arisen post the
subject Advertisement/Notification. He submits that these could not
have been filled up from the wait list candidates. The respondent no.2
submits that, therefore, in 2019, a fresh selection process was initiated
and the said posts were filled up.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
7. The learned Single Judge, in the Impugned Judgment, has taken
note of the fact that the future vacancies that arise cannot be filled up
through the candidates in the reserve list/wait list as the wait list
candidates can be only appointed against the vacancies for which they
have applied, and the reserve list/wait list cannot have an endless life
in this regard.
8. The learned Single Judge also explained the effect of the Office
Memorandum dated 08.02.1982, and held that the same applies only
to 'selected candidates', that is, the candidates who are placed in the
select list and not to the candidates in the reserve list/wait list.
9. The learned Single Judge further placed reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukul Saikia & Ors. v. State of
Assam & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 386, and State of Orissa & Anr. v.
Rajkishore Nanda & Ors., (2010) 6 SCC 777, wherein it was held
that filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies
advertised would, in fact, be a denial and deprivation of the
constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the
Constitution of India of those persons who acquired eligibility for the
post in question in accordance with the statutory rules, subsequent to
the date of notification of vacancies. The filling up of vacancies over
and above the notified vacancies is, therefore, neither permissible nor
desirable.
10. In the present case, as noted hereinabove, the respondent no.2
has contended that all the advertised vacancies stood filled, including
from the 58 candidates in the reserve list/wait list. It has been
contended that there were no posts from the advertised vacancies
remaining to the filled up. The above statement could not be disputed
by the appellant.
11. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has rightly
rejected the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
12. We, therefore, find no merit in the present appeal. The same is,
accordingly, dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
JULY 21, 2025/ns/SJ
