SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIVISION BENCH
VIVEK KAISTH AND ANOTHER — Appellant
Vs.
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent
( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. )
Civil Appeal Nos. 6233-6234 of 2023; (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15522-15523 of 2021) with Civil Appeal No. 6236 of 2023; (@ SLP(C) No. 2464 of 2022); Civil Appeal No. 6235 of 2023; (@ SLP(C) No. 21162 of 2021); Civil Appeal No. 6237 of 2023 and (@ SLP(C) No. 4873 of 2022)
Decided on : 20-11-2023
A. Service Law – Appointment – Post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – On February 1, 2013, the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commissionissued an advertisement inviting applications for eight vacancies in the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service – Of these, six vacancies were existing, and two were anticipated – There has been a violation of the process in making selection/appointment of the appellants, in as much as the vacancies on which the appellants were appointed were never advertised, and strictly speaking these vacancies cannot be termed as “anticipated vacancies” for the simple reason that these vacancies were only created on 18.04.2013 i.e. after the selection process had begun and advertisement was issued on 01.02.2013.
B. Service Law – Appointment – “anticipated vacancies” – To sum up the position of law as it stands, once clear and anticipated vacancies have been advertised, appointments can only be made on these vacancies – Vacancies which could not be anticipated before the date of advertisement, or the vacancies which did not exist at the time of advertisement, are the vacancies for the future i.e., next selection process.
Continue reading Only actual Post vacant be filled by advertisement.