Abhinav Garg, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Mr. Luv Kumar and Mr. Manwendra Gautam, Advs v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL

Judgment

1. The petitioner has sought invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court to seek her appointment on the seat, which has fallen vacant after resignation of an appointee of the Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2022, in accordance with Rule 18 (vii) of Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970.

2. The facts of the case would lie in a narrow compass, in as much Signature Not Verified as it is noted from the petition that the respondent had invited Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:13.08.2025 11:08:25 W.P.(C) 5830/2024 applications for filling up 123 vacancies in Delhi Judicial Services, vide Notification dated 24.02.2022 by conducting the Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2022.

3. The petitioner applied for the aforesaid DJS Examination, 2022 and after successfully qualifying the preliminary and mains examination, appeared for the interview. Upon declaration of the final results on 24.03.2023, the petitioner secured the 93rd rank. The selection committee prepared a list of 301 candidates in order of merit, which included the names of the recommended and waitlisted candidates. Out of the said total list, 110 candidates were selected and recommended for appointment and the break-up of the seats reveal that about 85 seats were recommended under the unreserved category, 03 seats for Persons with Disabilities in the General category, 06 seats for Schedule Caste category and 16 seats were recommended under the Schedule Tribe category.

4. As aforesaid, a total of 88 candidates from the general category were offered appointment and as such the petitioner was placed at serial no.5 in the waitlist of the unreserved category. It is available from records that out of the total 88 candidates, who were offered appointment, 4 candidates did not join, thereby leaving 4 vacant seats. Thus, 4 candidates from the waiting list were offered appointment in respect of those vacant posts and after the initial formalities concluded, the candidates joined on 20.03.2024.

Subsequently, out of those 4 candidates, one Ms. Riya Goyal (a Signature Not Verified General category candidate, who was placed at serial no.3 of the wait- Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:13.08.2025 11:08:25 W.P.(C) 5830/2024 list) and having been appointed as a member of Delhi Judicial Services vide Notification of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi F.6/6/2022- Judl./Suptlaw/519-525 dated 23.02.2024, tendered her resignation from Delhi Judicial Services on 26.03.2024 on account of her selection and subsequent appointment in the Punjab Judicial Services. The resignation of Ms. Riya Goyal was accepted by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide Notification F.6/6/2022-Judl./P.F1/Suptlaw/ 1015-1021 dated 10.05.2024, and she was relieved from her duties on 17.05.2024 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Delhi.

6. As the petitioner became aware of the resignation of Ms. Riya Goyal (one of the waiting list candidates), the petitioner sent a representation to the Registrar via e-mail dated 28th of March, 2024, seeking appointment against the vacancy arising due to the resignation of Ms. Riya Goyal. Upon not receiving a reply to the said representation the petitioner has approached this Court.

7. Mr. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner, being next in the waitlist, is entitled to be appointed against the vacancy arising out of Ms. Riya Goyal’s resignation and that the entire purpose of publishing a waiting list is that if in case any vacancy arises, either by non-joining of any candidate or by resignation of any candidate during the training period, it shall be filled up by the next candidate in the order of merit in the wait list.

8. According to the Learned Sr. Counsel, as per the Delhi Judicial Signature Not Verified Services Rules, 1970, the select list prepared for all the categories of Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:13.08.2025 11:08:25 W.P.(C) 5830/2024 candidates continued to be valid till next select list is prepared and since the select list is still valid, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed against the vacant post. It has been submitted that there is no express bar in the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970, for appointment of candidates from the waitlist, nor any express provision specifying the circumstances where such appointment can and cannot be made, and therefore, petitioner should be given the benefit of such ambiguity.

9. Learned Sr. Advocate J. Sai Deepak, has strenuously tried to reasons out that Ms. Riya Goyal had wrongly joined the Delhi Judicial services on 23.02.2024 by concealing material facts of her appointment as a member of Punjab Judicial Services vide notification dated 14.02.2024. .

10. According to the learned Sr. Counsel, since the respondent failed to verify the appointment of Ms. Riya Goyal as a member of Punjab Judicial Services before she was allowed to join the Delhi Judicial Services, her appointment on 20.03.2023 to Delhi Judicial Service should be held as void ab initio and consequently the petitioner should be offered appointment in the said vacant seat.

11. Furthermore, the counsel for the petitioner contends that an analogy may be drawn from the Office Memorandum (OM) dated

13.06.2000 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which allows for next-in-line candidates to join the service in case the recommended candidate does not join, resigns or dies within Signature Not Verified one year of appointment from the reserve panel/waitlist without Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:13.08.2025 11:08:25 W.P.(C) 5830/2024 treating the same as a fresh vacancy. Also, in the same vein, the case of Sujal Gautam & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.1, has been referred to by the learned Counsel, wherein it was held: “Vacancies resulting from resignation or death within one year of appointment should be filled from the reserve panel… Such a vacancy should not be treated as a fresh vacancy.” Thus, the learned Sr. Counsel, has submitted that the judgement mandates that where a valid reserve/wait list exists, it must be operated to fill such vacancies and since the petitioner, being general wait list – 05 is next in the order of merit, she is entitled to be considered for the said vacancy, which has arisen within one year, on a harmonious construction of the OM dated 13.06.2000, read along with the DoPT guidelines and Rule 18 (vi) of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970.

12. Per contra, Mr. Siddharth Thakur, learned counsel for the Respondent submits, that as per the applicable rules and relevant case laws the petitioner has no right to be appointed against the vacancy of the seat, which has arisen due to resignation of a selected candidate who had duly joined the service. According to him, Rule 18 (vi) of the Delhi Judicial Services, Rules, 1970 contemplates the appointment of next-in-line candidate as per the merit list where vacancy is created on account of failure of the selected candidate to join service within the stipulated or extended period of time. There is no provision in Delhi Judicial Services, 1970, which entitles the next in-line candidate, according to the select list, to get appointed where the vacancy is Signature Not Verified 1 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1850 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:13.08.2025 11:08:25 W.P.(C) 5830/2024 created on account of subsequent resignation of a selected candidate where vacancy is created on account of subsequent resignation of a selected candidate who had duly joined the services. The learned Counsel relies on the judgement of Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi2, as well as the judgment of Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. The State of Haryana & Ors.3, wherein the Supreme Court clarified that any vacancies arising out of resignation of one of the selected candidates does not gives rise to a fresh vacancy.

13. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, the provisions of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970 is clear that once the selected candidates join against all the available vacancies, the process of recruitment will deem to be concluded and any ensuing vacancy arising due to subsequent resignation of a candidate who had duly joined the service cannot be filled from the waiting list but through a fresh recruitment process. Illustratively, he contends that one candidate namely Ms. Juhi Anand (SC category) selected on the basis of Delhi Judicial Examination, 2022, had initially joined, but subsequently she tendered her resignation during the course of her training and the vacancy so created on account of her resignation was not offered to any next waitlisted candidate of SC category as the vacancy was to be filled up through fresh recruitment process only as per the mandate of law and as such prays for dismissal of this petition

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court Signature Not Verified