- In Mandeep Kumar And Ors. v. UT Chandigarh And Ors., 2022, Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari refused to meddle with the ruling of the Punjab and Haryana HC regarding the interchangeability/de-reservation.
- In this instance, after some applicants threatened to commit suicide in protest, a PIL was filed against the Punjab Government for its failure to fill Education Trained Teacher positions. The Hon'ble HC issued an order to fill the 4500 and 2005 vacancies, notified via an advertisement, on a temporary basis. Even though the government filled ETT positions based on merit and reservation, 595 posts in the SC/ST category remained unfilled due to a lack of qualified applicants in that category. The applicants (Appellant) who were placed on the merit list for the job of ETT in the Backward Classes category requested the Court to direct interchangeability of the vacant posts to be filled by the applicants of Backward Classes. The applicants made submissions to the appropriate authorities based on the policy letter issued by the State granting interchangeability. However, the government allegedly re-advertised the vacant positions without considering the submissions.
- The State, when questioned, clarified that the representations were rejected again, and it was decided to re-advertise the SC/ST category positions. The Court approved it after considering the Additional Advocate General's assertion that actions are being made to investigate the matter of de-reservation. As a result, the HC dismissed the appellants' petition. The appellant used Section 7(2) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Act to prove their case, while the respondent applied Section 7 of the Act to counter the appellant.
- The important statues to this case are mentioned below:
- Section 7 of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Service) Act, 2006, states that no appointing authority shall de-reserve any reserved post in any organization to be filled by direct recruitment or promotion. If a qualified or suitable Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes applicant, as the case may be, is not available to fill the post, the vacancy must remain unfilled.
- Section 7(2) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Service) Act, 2006, states that the appointing authority cannot participate in the de-reservation of reserved vacancies, but the same can only be done by the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes.
- The Hon'ble Court observed that the appointing authority cannot de-reserve a reserved position to be filled by direct recruitment or promotion based on Section 7(2) of the 2006 Act. However, if openings remain unfilled owing to a lack of qualified candidates, the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes can request that the vacancies be de-reserved. If it is in the public interest, the Department can make such a de-reservation after recording reasons.
- The Hon'ble SC further contended that the form of the protest that compelled the High Court to intervene was regrettable and inappropriate. The Court also noted that issuing an interchangeability directive after six years of notifying the selection list to fill vacant SC/ST category jobs would be unreasonable.
- Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble SC.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
