Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dixitkumar Harishbhai Pandya, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court challenging the action of respondent No. 2 (the Corporation) for not including his name in the final merit list for the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector (Class III). The petitioner had applied pursuant to an advertisement published by the Corporation, which advertised five posts: three for general category, one for women, and one for SEBC. In the provisional merit list, the petitioner stood at serial No. 4. However, the final merit list included only three general category candidates (those ranked 1, 2, and 3), one SEBC candidate, and no women candidate as no meritorious female candidate was found. The petitioner argued that since five posts were advertised and he was at serial No. 4, he should be appointed, especially because the women's seat remained vacant. The court examined the facts and noted that the three general category posts were filled by candidates higher in merit than the petitioner. The SEBC seat was also filled. The women's seat remained vacant because no suitable female candidate was available. The advertisement specifically stated that if a women's seat remains vacant, it shall be filled by a female candidate only. The court held that the petitioner has no right to appointment as there was no vacancy in the general category. The unfilled women's seat could not be offered to a male candidate as it would violate the reservation policy and the terms of the advertisement. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Appointment - No Vacancy - The petitioner sought appointment to the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector (Class III) but the three general category posts were filled by higher merit candidates and the unfilled women's seat could not be transferred to general category as per the advertisement. The court held that the petitioner has no right to appointment when no vacancy exists in his category and the terms of the advertisement are binding. (Paras 4-5) B) Service Law - Recruitment - Reservation - Women's Seat - The advertisement provided that if a women's seat remains vacant, it shall be filled by a female candidate only. The court held that the unfilled women's seat cannot be offered to a male general category candidate as it would violate the reservation policy and the terms of the advertisement. (Para 4.1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who stood at serial no. 4 in the provisional merit list for the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector, is entitled to appointment when only three general category posts were available and the unfilled women's seat could not be offered to him.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- No right to appointment if no vacancy
- Terms of advertisement binding
- Reservation policy cannot be altered by court
