Summary
Backward Class candidates sought appointment against 595 unfilled reserved teaching posts from a 2015–2016 recruitment by interchange with Scheduled Caste vacancies. The Court held that the appointing authority could not itself de-reserve posts, although the designated Welfare Department retained a qualified statutory power. The historical interchange policy had been restored and was not inherently inconsistent with that framework. Nevertheless, departmental errors created no appointment right, and the old selection list could not support the requested relief years later. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the appointing authority could interchange or de-reserve the unfilled reserved posts.
- Whether restored historical interchange instructions were inconsistent with the 2006 Act.
- Whether the candidates had a right to relief through the old selection list despite departmental errors and fresh recruitment.
Provisions considered
- Section 7, Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006The appointing authority could not de-reserve reserved vacancies itself. The designated Welfare Department could act on a reference upon public-interest satisfaction, by written order and subject to the statutory carry-forward condition. (¶¶ 15-16, 20)
- Interchangeability instructions, Punjab Government policy letter No.1945-WG-54-17246 dated 17 March 1954, restored by letter dated 20 June 1974The restored policy was not inconsistent with Section 7, but did not confer an individual right to compel interchange or dispense with the competent department’s decision and applicable conditions. (¶ 17-20)
Held
- Section 7 generally prohibited de-reservation by an appointing authority. Its exception required reference to the Welfare Department, that department’s satisfaction that action was necessary or expedient in the public interest, a written order and carry-forward against a subsequent unreserved vacancy. (¶¶ 15-16, 20)
- The interchange policy withdrawn in 1964 had been restored in 1974 with conditions, and the 1979 clarification required the Welfare Department’s no-objection certificate. The policy was not inherently contrary to the 2006 Act; the power nevertheless belonged to the competent Welfare Department. (¶ 17-20)
- The Education Department’s requests did not establish an entitlement where the competent department had not agreed to interchange. Reliance on incorrect instructions or a mistaken assertion that the policy remained withdrawn was deprecated but did not create an enforceable right to the appointments sought. (¶¶ 12-14, 20)
- All notified Backward Class posts had been filled on merit. Compelling interchange to accommodate candidates from the 2016 list after about six years was unjustified, and that list could not remain available indefinitely for such appointments. Fresh recruitment for the vacancies had already been advertised in accordance with law. (¶¶ 4, 11, 20)
- The Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s disposal and dismissed the appeal without costs. (¶ 20-21)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs. No direction was issued to interchange the unfilled reserved teaching posts or appoint the appellants from the earlier selection list.