Rajindra Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated December 12, 2020, passed by this Court in two petitions being W.P.(C) 3520/2017, Rajindra Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. and W.P.(C) 8447/2017, Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar Yadav. This Court has allowed the W.P.(C) 8447/2017. It is a review petition filed in W.P.(C) 3520/2017.

2. The ground on which the review petition has been filed and also contended by Mr. Yashpal Rangi, is primarily that the judgment has been passed on the basis of incorrect statement made on behalf of the respondents. According to him, in paragraph 21 of the judgment, this Court has shown reluctance to issue direction to accommodate the persons, who are left out on account of revaluation exercise only on the basis of that statement.

3. We find that the petitioner has not really highlighted what incorrect statement has been made by the respondents. The other grounds raised by the petitioner are primarily on the merit of the conclusion drawn by this Court in order dated December 12, 2020.

4. In any case, a perusal of the rejoinder would show that the incorrect statement that is sought to be highlighted by Mr. Rangi is with regard to the availability of the vacancies on the date when the judgment was pronounced, i.e., December 12, 2020.

5. According to him, there were five vacancies existing under unreserved category (on December 12, 2020), which the respondents have carried forward in the year 2022.

6. Assuming for a moment, the said statement is correct, i.e., 5 /6 vacancies were in existence on December 12, 2020, but that would not give a right to the petitioner to seek an appointment, more so, when it is the case of the respondents that the said vacancies have been carry forward in the year 2022.

7. In that sense, the carry forward vacancies need to be filled through a fresh recruitment process, cannot enure to the benefit of those candidates, who could not be appointed in the previous selection. Moreover, it is a conceded case of the petitioner that as against the cut-off marks of 78; he has secured 77 marks. In that sense, the petitioner has not attained the benchmark prescribed for making appointment. Hence, the review sought by the petitioner on the ground that the vacancies are in existence, does not appeal to this Court.

8. Insofar as the reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Manoj Manu v. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 171 and The Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. v. Ms. Rajni & Ors., W.P.(C) 2552/2012, decided on March 5, 2013 to contend that for all purposes, the notified vacancies need to be filled is concerned, suffice to state that in the judgment dated December 12, 2020, this Court had dealt with the judgment in Manoj Manu (supra) in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment.

9. Even assuming that the Supreme Court has held that when certain candidates have not joined the posts / appointment then the reserve list must be operated, this Court is of the view that it is too late in the day to accommodate the petitioner on the post as the recruitment process is of the year 2012, and nine years have gone by.

10. That apart, it is the stand of the respondents that the vacancies have since been carried forward in the year 2022. In that sense, there are no vacancies available for accommodating any candidate who participated in the earlier selection, but not appointed.

11. Similarly, the judgment in the case of The Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. (supra) shall also be not applicable when it is not the case of the petitioner herein that the reserve list has been prepared to be operated and also for the reason that the vacancies have been carried forward in the year 2022 to be filled in a future recruitment year.

12. We do not find any merit in the review petition, the same is dismissed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. SEPTEMBER 01, 2023