MANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERSversusU.T. CHANDIGARH & OTHERS

820            SUPREME COURT
                         [2022]REPORTS
                                2 S.C.R. 820               [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A                    MANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS
                                        v.
                       U.T. CHANDIGARH & OTHERS
                         (Civil Appeal No. 1908 of 2022)
B                               MARCH 9, 2022
          [INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
             Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation
      in Service) Act, 2006 – s.7 – De-reservation/Interchangeability of
      the post of SC/ST category of Elementary Trained Teachers (ETT)
C
      to OBC category – Held: Interchangeability can be done by the
      department and not by the appointing authority – s.7 of 2006 Rules
      stipulates that de-reservation of any reserved vacancy which is to
      be filled up by direct recruitment or by promotion cannot be done
      by the appointing authority – In case due to non availability of the
D     eligible candidates of any of the category, the posts remain unfilled,
      the appointing authority may request to the Department of Welfare
      of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes for de-reservation of
      the said unfilled vacancy – The said de-reservation may be possibly
      directed by the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and
      Backward Classes if it is expedient in public interest after recording
E
      satisfaction for such de-reservation – The policy letter issued by
      the state government which was withdrawn but later restored makes
      it clear that the instructions are not in contravention of s.7 of 2006
      Rules – Service law.
            Dismissing the appeal, the Court
F
             HELD: As per Section 7 of 2006 Act, de-reservation for
      the reserved vacancy by the appointing authority is restricted.
      The said de-reservation may be possibly directed by the
      Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward
      Classes if it is expedient in public interest after recording
G     satisfaction for such de-reservation. In the said contingency the
      department shall pass an order assigning those reasons. Thus,
      in the context of 2006 Act also the de-reservation or
      interchangeability may be possible with a rigour to exercise such

H
                                       820
     MANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS v. U.T. CHANDIGARH &                          821
                      OTHERS

power by the department, namely; Department of Scheduled                    A
Castes and Backward Classes and not by appointing authority.
The Policy letter No. 1945-WG-54-17246 which was withdrawn
on 11.11.1964, later restored vide letter dated 20.06.1974 makes
it clear that those instructions are not in contravention of the
provisions of Section 7 of the 2006 Act; in fact, it is as per the
                                                                            B
spirit of the 2006 Act. Therefore, the interchangeability of the
vacant unfilled posts of SC category may be possible due to not
having eligible candidates by the department concerned but not
by appointing authority. In the said context, the letters returned
by the Education Department in favour of the appellants to the
department concerned are not of much relevance in particular                C
when the department concerned have not agreed upon the request
of interchangeability of the unfilled posts of SC/ST category and
refused to accept the request of the appointing authority. [Para
20][831-A-E]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1908                   D
of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2020 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.24383 of 2016.
      P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Tushar Bakshi,
Advs. for the Appellants.                                                   E

      Karan Bharihoke, Adv. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
                                                                            F
      1. Leave granted.
       2. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment dated 17.01.2020,
passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition
No. 24383 of 2016, whereby the aforesaid Writ Petition was dismissed
on the basis of statement made by learned Additional Advocate General
of the State of Punjab regarding the decision taken by the authorities to   G
re-advertise the unfilled posts of Elementary Trained Teachers (in short
“ETT”) afresh and to fill up it in accordance with law. Being aggrieved
by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.

                                                                            H
822             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A            3. The controversy in nutshell brought by way of suo moto PIL
      registered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana pertained to inaction
      of the State of Punjab in filling up of vacancies of ETT, which were
      advertised vide two separate advertisements dated 08.11.2015 and
      30.07.2016. In the abovesaid advertisements, total of 4500 and 2005
      vacancies of ETT were notified under various categories inclusive of
B
      SC/ST, OBC, freedom fighter, handicapped etc. respectively. After
      entertaining the Public Interest Litigation and as per the interim directions
      of the High Court, the posts of ETT had been filled up as per merit and
      category wise. But due to not having selected eligible candidates of SC/
      ST category those posts remained vacant. Now, it is the grievance of
C     the appellants that the unfilled posts of SC/ST category may be filled
      from the eligible candidates of Backward Class category, directing
      interchangeability of the said vacant posts.
             4. The facts as put forth in appeal, the appellants have applied for
      the post of ETT in the category of Backward Class. Pursuant to the
D     advertisement, selection process was carried out and appointment letters
      were issued to the selected candidates. All the notified posts of Backward
      Classes have been filled up merit wise after the direction of the High
      Court. In the said process of selection, 595 posts of SC/ST category
      remained unfilled on account of “non- availability” of eligible candidates
      in the said category. The appellants herein are claiming appointment
E
      against those vacant posts of SC/ST category on the anvil of policy
      instructions regarding “Reservations of vacancies in State Government
      Services of members of Backward Classes”, issued by State of Punjab
      vide letter no. “1945-WG-54- 17246, dated 17.03.1954 (hereinafter to
      be referred to as Policy letter No.17246). The aforesaid Policy letter
F     provide for “de-reservation/ interchangeability” of the post from SC/ST
      category to OBC category or vis-à-vis in a contingency of non-availability
      of eligible candidates belongs to SC/ST or OBC, as the case may be.
      The appellants submitted various representations to the concerned
      authorities on the basis of the said Policy letter for interchangeability of
G     the posts of SC/ST into OBC category, which as per appellants was not
      considered in a right perspective. Now by order impugned as per the
      statement made by the State Government those posts are being re-
      advertised, without redressing their grievance.
            5. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the appellants
      contends that against un-filled posts of SC/ST category in terms of
H
     MANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS v. U.T. CHANDIGARH &                               823
                      OTHERS

instructions issued vide Policy letter No. 17246 interchangeability of the       A
post from SC/ST to OBC category is permissible. Sub-section 2 of Section
7 of The Punjab Schedule Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation
in Service) Act, 2006 (for short “the 2006 Act”) does not restrain the
State Government to fill up the un- filled vacant post of SC/ST category
by OBC category by interchanging the same. The respondent-State
                                                                                 B
despite an order of the High Court has rejected the claim, relying upon
the instructions issued vide letter No. 1945-WG-54/17248 dated 17.3.1954
(hereinafter to be referred to as “Policy letter No. 17248”) on 2.8.2019,
though it is not applicable to the subject in context. This fact was brought
to the notice of the Court, however an order was passed on 2.12.2020,
directing the respondent to pass order, strictly in accordance with the          C
penultimate paragraph of the order dated 07.09.2018 of the High Court
within four weeks. The State Government again vide order dated
11.12.2020, rejected the claim mentioning the incorrect fact of withdrawal
of instructions of the Policy letter No. 17246. In fact, the said instructions
were restored vide letter No. 1346-SW1-74/11491 dated June 20, 1974              D
and is in existence. Thus, the State Government sit tight over the matter
ignoring their own policies and making attempt to rely the instructions,
having no application in the issue. After passing the impugned order
dated 17.1.2020 and during pendency of the present appeal, fresh
advertisement to fill up the Posts of ETT has been issued without
ventilating the grievance of the appellants regarding interchangeability         E
of the posts and to consider the appellants for appointment on the above
said Posts.
       6. Per contra, Mr. Karan Bharihoke, learned counsel representing
the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 contends that as per Section 7 of 2006 Act,
de-reservation is not permissible. In terms of the provisions of the 2006        F
Act and the instructions issued by the State Government, the claim of
the appellants has been reconsidered by the Department of Social Justice,
Empowerment and Minority, and vide reply dated 5.1.2021 rejected the
claim of the appellants. It is urged that by issuing the fresh advertisement,
the process to fill up of the vacant posts of ETT in the State has started,      G
however the High Court has not committed any error while passing the
order impugned. The State Government in compliance to the order of
the High Court is duty bound to fill up the vacant posts of ETT as
expeditiously as possible, therefore now process of selection has been
started.
                                                                                 H
824             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A            7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
      of the facts of the present case, it is apparent that to fill up the posts of
      ETT, advertisements were issued on 9.11.2015 for 3522 posts and vide
      corrigendum dated 13.1.2016, additional 978 posts were again notified
      making the total posts 4500. In another set of process of recruitment, by
      subsequent advertisement dated 30.7.2016, 2005 posts of ETT were
B
      notified. Appellants applied under both the advertisements and undergone
      the process of selection for the posts of ETT, and also found place on
      merit.
              8. The Public Interest Litigation came to be registered by High
      Court because certain applicants belonging to the Backward Class
C     category protested by holding out threats to commit suicide against the
      inaction of the State of Punjab. As per the protestors, they had qualified
      their test and were eligible for appointment as ETT. They further insisted
      that a meeting be held regarding their demands with the Chief Minister
      of Punjab. The said incident gathered media attention, whereafter, the
D     High Court of Punjab and Haryana took “suo-moto” cognizance on the
      issue on judicial side treating it as Public Interest Litigation, registering
      the same i.e., as CWP. No. 24383 of 2016.
             9. The said writ petition was disposed by the High Court vide
      order dated 23.12.2016 with the following directions:
E           “We are of the view, that the methods adopted by the protesters
            are unfortunate, improper and incorrect. It is to be noticed that at
            one stage the persons protesting had stated that once the process
            was initiated, they would end their protest and now, even
            appointment letter is being offered, but one of the protesters is
F           somewhat unrelenting. In the circumstances, the further
            continuation of the Court proceedings may not be proper. However,
            the matter was taken up as it was viewed that the protesting youth
            may not loose their lives by their misplaced notions and for this
            they needed counselling and guidance.

G           Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) has emphasized that
            the matter be kept pending for laying down guidelines in future in
            such cases. Though we would have liked to do so but for the
            present, it would be just and expedient to put a quietus to the
            matter so that the person protesting can climb down from the
            tower and seek his appointment as Elementary Teacher after
H
     MANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS v. U.T. CHANDIGARH &                               825
                      OTHERS

       complying with the necessary formalities. Besides, the State shall        A
       continue with its process of offering appointment letters to the
       Elementary Teachers whose turn on merit has reached so that
       the recruitment process against the 4005 and the 2005 posts of
       Elementary Teachers is completed and the vacant posts are filled.
       Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate as also Mr. Jagmohan Singh Bhatti,               B
       Advocate (Amicus curiae) and Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate (Amicus
       Curiae) State that they shall jointly file a PIL in this regard. They
       may do so.
       The present petition is, accordingly disposed of.”
       10. Thereafter, C.M. No. 5766 of 2017 was filed before the High           C
Court on 3.4.2017 by the appellants informing about the subsequent
developments which transpired after passing the said order. The response
was sought from the Director, Public Instruction (Elementary Education).
A comprehensive affidavit was filed apprising about the vacancies and
the steps taken by the Department of School Education for de-reservation/        D
interchangeability of the post of Schedule Caste/Tribe category to OBC
category.
        11. As per the response, it is not disputed that 595 posts of SC/ST
category are not yet filled due to non-availability of the eligible candidates
in the said category. It is also not disputed that out of the said process of    E
selection, about 100 eligible candidates of OBC category were available.
It is said the Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 24383 of 2016 was registered
to maintain law and order situation due to the protest raised by
unemployed youths climbed on tower on account of not filling the posts
of ETT. It was further stated that merit candidates of Backward Classes
have already been appointed on the vacant posts of the said category.            F
Now they are claiming interchangeability of the 595 unfilled posts of
SC/ST category to Backward Class category as per the Policy letter
No. 17246. It is further urged Section 7 of the 2006 Act confers powers
to the State Government to take decision if expedient in public interest.
      12. On perusal of record, it reveals the High Court vide order             G
dated 9.2.2018 directed the Department of Welfare, Government of
Punjab to take a decision on the letter of the Department of School
Education affording due opportunity of hearing to the applicants. The
High Court also granted time to the candidates of Backward Class
category to file the fresh representation for consideration. There after
                                                                                 H
826             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A     vide order dated 9.5.2018 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department
      of Welfare of Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and Minorities, these
      representations were rejected relying on the instruction letter No. 17248.
      It is true those instructions were not applicable and they had to consider
      the Policy letter No. 17246, relevant on the issue. There after High
      Court vide order dated 7.9.2018 directed the State Government to pass
B
      a fresh order in terms of the Policy letter No. 17246. The State
      Government filed the reply by way of additional affidavit before the
      High Court and said that Department of Social Welfare, Punjab vide
      letter dated 4.10.2018 declined to interchange the vacant post of SC/ST
      category to the Backward Class. In the meantime, Writ Petition (PIL)
C     No. 108 of 2019 was filed before the High Court making prayer to issue
      the direction to the State of Punjab to fill up the said vacant posts of
      Scheduled Caste category, which was disposed of vide order dated
      15.05.2019. The application filed by the appellants in the said Writ Petition
      for modification was also disposed off observing that while passing the
      order, the appellants/applicants may also be given an opportunity of
D
      hearing. Thereafter, Director, Education Department on 16.8.2019 wrote
      a letter to the Principal Secretary, Social Justice, Empowerment and
      Minorities (Reservation Cell) seeking guidance regarding
      interchangeability. The Department of Social Justice, relied upon the
      order dated 9.5.2018 and said the interchangeability of the posts is not
E     permissible. The High Court after the response, passed the order
      impugned dated 17.01.2020 dismissing the writ petition with the following
      observations:
            “Having perused the record, it is also observed that a public interest
            litigation CWP -PIL -108-2019 was filed before this Court praying
F           for issuance of a direction to the State of Punjab to fill up the
            aforesaid vacant posts of Schedule caste category, which petition
            has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15.5.2019
            directing the State of Punjab to consider the representation of
            public interest petitioners. IT is further observed that a
G           miscellaneous application was filed by certain OBC candidates
            seeking recall and modification of the direction issued by this Court
            on 15.05.2019 in CWP-PIL-108-2019, which has also been
            disposed of by this Court by order dated 30.5.2019 with a
            modification that the applicants would also be granted hearing by
            the authorities while taking a decision.
H
     MANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS v. U.T. CHANDIGARH &                             827
                      OTHERS

      The respondents in their additional affidavit have placed order          A
      dated 02.08.2019 on record passed by the Director, Education,
      Punjab, in compliance with the order passed by this Court in Public
      Interest Litigation as well as the order of modification dated
      30.05.2019. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the
      authorities have examined the issue and have rejected the claim
                                                                               B
      of the applicants.
      The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State
      of Punjab submits that the authorities have now taken a decision to
      re-advertise the posts and fill up the same in accordance with law.
      In view of the aforesaid facts and events that have transpired, we       C
      do not find any reason to keep the present petition pending which
      was initiated suo moto by this Court on account of the illegal mode
      of protest adopted by certain persons. More so, in view of the
      fact that the issue that was subsequently taken up by this Court in
      the present case, has already been addressed and appropriate
      orders have been passed in CWP-PIL-108-2019. In the                      D
      circumstances, as nothing further survives for decision in the
      present suo moto writ petition, the same is accordingly dismissed,
      taking the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General,
      Punjab on instructions from Ms. Malka Rani, Senior Assistant,
      DPI(EE) on record, that they are taking up steps for filling up the      E
      posts in accordance with law, including the steps of examining the
      issue of seeking dereservation, if so advised, as contained in Section
      7(2) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes
      (Reservation in Service) Act, 2006.
      In view of the aforesaid discussion, as the petition is dismissed no     F
      further orders are required to be passed by this Court in the
      applications filed by the applicants.”
      13. On filing the present appeal and after issuance of notice, indeed
on 2.12.2020 this Court passed the following order
      “Having heard Shri P.S. Patwalia and Shri Bharihoke at same              G
      length, it appears clear to us that the High Court order dated
      07.09.2018 in particular:
          “Learned State counsel prays for time to seek instructions and
          to file an affidavit in this regard. In case it is found that the
          earlier order passed was based on instructions issued vide letter    H
828             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A               No. 1945-WG-54/17248 dated 17.3.1954, then the
                respondent-Department shall pass a fresh order on the basis
                of the instructions vide letter No. 1945-WG-54-17246 dated
                17.3.1954.”
                has not yet been complied with. We had been shown an order
B               dated 02.08.2019 which merely reiterates the 07.09.2018 order
                without the Government applying its mind to the penultimate
                paragraph of the High Court order dated 07.09.2018 set out
                hereinabove.
                We therefore, direct the respondent to pass an order strictly in
C               accordance with the penultimate paragraph of order dated
                07.09.2018 within four weeks from today.
                The interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.
                Application for impleadment is dismissed as withdrawn.”

D           14. In response to the order, the additional affidavit is filed before
      this Court, inter alia, contending that the interchangeability of the posts
      of SC/ST category of ETT to OBC category is not permissible with
      regard to the instructions contained in Policy letter No. 17246, it is said
      those instructions have already been withdrawn. It is stated that the
      de-reservation/ interchangeability of the post from SC/ST category to
E     OBC category is not permissible as per Section 7 of 2006 Act.
            15. In this regard to appreciate the arguments, the provision of
      Section 7 of 2006 Act is required to be quoted for ready reference,
      which is reproduced as thus:
            “7. De-reservation of reserved vacancy. – (1) There shall be no
F
            de-reservation of any reserved vacancy by any appointing authority
            in any establishment, which is to be filled up by direct recruitment
            or by promotion. In case, a qualified or eligible Scheduled Castes
            or Backward Classes candidate, as the case may be, is not
            available to fill up such vacancy, in that situation, such vacancy
G           shall remain unfilled.
            (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if, in
            the public interest, it is deemed necessary to fill up any vacancy
            referred to in that sub-section, the appointing authority shall refer
            the vacancy to the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes
H           and Backward Classes for de-reservation. Upon such reference,
     MANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS v. U.T. CHANDIGARH &                                829
                      OTHERS

       the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward                 A
       Classes may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to
       do, by order in writing, de- reserve the vacancy, subject to the
       condition that the vacancy so de-reserved, shall be carried forward
       against a subsequent unreserved vacancy. “
        16. From the bare reading of the aforesaid, it is clear that              B
de-reservation of any reserved vacancy which is to be filled up by direct
recruitment or by promotion cannot be done by the appointing authority.
In case due to non-availability of the eligible candidates of any of the
category, the posts remain unfilled, the appointing authority may request
to the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward
Classes for de-reservation of the said unfilled vacancy. On such request          C
after recording satisfaction, if necessary or expedient in the public interest,
subject to the condition to carry forward the said vacancy against
subsequent unreserved vacancy the order may be passed by the said
department.
     17. In this context, the instructions issued vide Policy letter No.          D
17246 are also relevant, which are extracted and reproduced as thus:
       “Government have now decided that, on the basis of their
       population, an additional 2 per cent of vacancies in the State
       Government services should also be reserved for members of the
       ‘Backward Classes’ and that before vacancies reserved for                  E
       Backward Classes are thrown open to others, they should first be
       offered to candidates of Scheduled Castes/Tribes, if available. In
       the same way, before vacancies meant for Scheduled Castes/
       Tribes are thrown open to others owing to unavailability of suitable
       candidates, they shall be offered first to the backward classes.”          F
       18. The aforesaid Policy letter was withdrawn vide letter No.
13565-4WGI-64/23892 dated 11th November, 1964, but it was again
restored adding some conditions vide letter No. 1346-SW1-74/11491 dated
20.06.1974; the relevant extract of such instruction is also reproduced
as thus:                                                                          G
       “I am directed to refer to the subject noted above and to say that
       prior to 11th November, 1964, in the event of non-availability of
       Scheduled Castes/Tribes candidate against a reserved vacancy,
       preference was given to Backward Classes candidates and vice
       versa, over other general candidates. This inter- changeability of
                                                                                  H
830            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A           reserved vacancies was withdrawn – vide para 4 of Punjab
            Government letter No. 13565- 4WG1-64/23892 dated 11 th
            November, 1964, with the result that if a reserved vacancy is not
            filled by the candidate belonging to the particular category for
            which it is reserved it is carried forward in accordance with the
            current instructions, or, if this is not possible, it is thrown open to
B
            other generally.
            2. This matter has been engaging the attention of Government for
            some time past and it has now been decided that after the carry
            forward rule has been exhausted and a suitable scheduled cast
            candidate has still not become available, a vacancy reserved for
C           this category should first of all be offered to a candidate belonging
            to the Backward Classes, before it is thrown open for general
            recruitment. In case a Backward Class candidate avails of such
            a vacancy, the vacancy properly reserved for a Backward Class
            candidate later in the roster would then go to a Scheduled Caste
D           candidate instead.
            3. The receipt of this communication may please be acknowledged.
             19. The clarification as issued vide letter No. 2/246/78- SW3/
      7416 dated 10.12.1979 written by the Secretary to Government of Punjab,
      Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes to all heads of Departments is
E     also relevant however, reproduced as under:
            “Subject: Reservation in services for members of Scheduled
            Castes and Backward Classes- Interchangeability of
            reserved posts between them.
            I am directed to invite a reference of Punjab Government letter
F           No. 1346-SW1-74/11491 dated 20th June, 1994 and letter No.
            771-SW1-76 dated 6th April, 1976, on the subject noted above,
            and to say while giving the benefits of interchangeability to a
            backward Class candidate and vice-versa, the Department do
            not obtain no-objection certificate from the Department of Welfare
G           of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes despite clear provision
            in the instructions. To make it clear, under the instructions,
            no-objection certificate is a must before the vacancy meant for
            Scheduled Castes person is offered to a Backward Class candidate
            and vice-versa.
            2. Its receipt may please be acknowledged.”
H
     MANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS v. U.T. CHANDIGARH &                              831
                      OTHERS

        20. From the above it is clear that as per Section 7 of 2006 Act,       A
de-reservation for the reserved vacancy by the appointing authority is
restricted. The said de-reservation may be possibly directed by the
Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes if
it is expedient in public interest after recording satisfaction for such de-
reservation. In the said contingency the department shall pass an order
                                                                                B
assigning those reasons. Thus, in the context of 2006 Act also the
de-reservation or interchangeability may be possible with a rigour to
exercise such power by the department, namely; Department of
Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes and not by appointing authority.
If we examine the Policy letter No. 1945-WG-54-17246 which was
withdrawn on 11.11.1964, later restored vide letter dated 20.06.1974            C
makes it clear that those instructions are not in contravention of the
provisions of Section 7 of the 2006 Act; in fact, it is as per the spirit of
the 2006 Act. Therefore, in the net result, the interchangeability of the
vacant unfilled posts of SC category may be possible due to not having
eligible candidates by the department concerned but not by appointing
                                                                                D
authority. In the said context, the letters returned by the Education
Department in favour of the appellants to the department concerned are
not of much relevance in particular when the department concerned
have not agreed upon the request of interchangeability of the unfilled
posts of SC/ST category and refused to accept the request of the
appointing authority. In addition to the aforesaid it is required to be         E
observed in the manner in which the protest was started by the candidates
of the OBC category was not justified. The High Court has rightly
observed that steps taken by the protestors were unfortunate, improper
and incorrect. The suo moto PIL No. 108-2019 was entertained to save
the life of protesting youth, and it should not be influenced by misplaced
                                                                                F
notions and they may be counselled or guided by the authorities. However,
after issuing the direction, the candidates of the OBC category were
appointed in terms of their merit. Thereafter, by filing the miscellaneous
applications and subsequent writ petitions the relief to fill up the vacant
posts of SC/ST category from the candidates of the Backward Classes
has been pressed upon, which has been rejected by the High Court by             G
the order impugned. At this stage it cannot be lost sight that the merit list
was prepared in furtherance to the advertisement of the year 2015-2016
and to accommodate the candidates of the said merit list. Thereafter
interchangeability for unfilled 595 vacancies of SC/ST category has been
prayed for. In our considered opinion, issuance of such direction after 6
                                                                                H
832              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A     years of notifying the selection list for filling up the unfilled vacancies of
      SC/ST category by OBC would be wholly unjustified. In addition, the
      selection list prepared in the year 2016 would not survive after the lapse
      of a long time to fill up the vacancies after interchangeability. It is to
      observe that rejection of claims of appellants by the departmental
      authorities relying upon wrong instructions or mentioning incorrect fact
B
      of withdrawal of Policy letter No. 17246 would not confer any right to
      appellants to claim the reliefs. Such an act of the departmental authorities
      may be deprecated but it would not confer any right to the appellants to
      seek direction of interchangeability of the unfilled 595 posts of ETT of
      SC/ST category to OBC category. Therefore, the argument advanced
C     by learned senior counsel Mr. Patwalia in this regard is hereby repelled.
      As stated by the respondent, the process to fill up the vacant posts of
      ETT in the state has already been advertised, which is in accordance to
      law. Therefore, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are not
      inclined to grant the relief as prayed in this appeal.
D            21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to
      interfere in the order impugned. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
      No order as to costs.

      Devika Gujral                                                 Appeal dismissed.
      (Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)
E




F




G




H