/2022 INSC 0188/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL   APPELLATE   JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1908 OF 2022
( ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL   LEAVE   PETITION   (C)   NO. 4173   OF   2020 )
MANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
U.T. CHANDIGARH & OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
J.K.        Maheshwari,        J .
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   re­advertise   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. 
1

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
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 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   i n   the   category   of   B ackward
Class. Pursuant to the advertisement, selection process was
carried   out   and   appointment   letters   were   issued   to   the
2

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   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.   “1945­WG­54­
17246,   dated   17.03.1954   (hereinafter   to   be   referred   to   as
Policy   letter   No.17246).   The   aforesaid   Policy   letter   provide
for   “de­reservation/   interchangeability”   of   the   post   from
SC/ST   category   to   OBC   category   or   vis­à­vis   in   a
contingency of non­availability 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 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
3

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   un­filled   posts   of   SC/ST
category   in   terms   of   instructions   issued   vide   Policy   letter
No.   17246   interchangeability   of   the   post   from   SC/ST   to
OBC category is permissible.   Sub­section 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   respondent­State   despite   an
order of the High Court has rejected the claim, relying upon
the   instructions   issued   vide   letter   No.   1945­WG­54/17248
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   penultimate   paragraph   of   the   order
dated 07.09.2018 of the High Court within four weeks.  The
4

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.
1346­SW1­74/11491   dated   June   20,   1974   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   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, de­reservation is not permissible.
In   terms   of   the   provisions   of   the   2006   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
5

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,
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.  
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   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
6

High   Court   because   certain   applicants   belonging   to   the
Backward   Class   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   t est   a n d   were
eligible   for   appointment   as   E T T . 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   High   Court   of   Punjab   and
Haryana   took   “suo­moto”   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:
“ 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
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 .
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
7

that   the   person   protesting   can   climb   down   from   the
tower   and   seek   his   appointment   as   Elementary
Teacher after complying with the necessary formalities .
Besides,   the   State   shall   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,  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   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   de­reservation/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   non­availability
of the eligible candidates in the said category.  It is also not
disputed that out of the said process of selection, about 100
eligible candidates of OBC category were available. It is said
8

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.
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   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 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
9

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   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)   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   hearing.   Thereafter,   Director,   Education   Department   on
16.8.2019   wrote   a   letter   to   the   Principal   Secretary,   Social
Justice,   Empowerment   and   Minorities   (Reservation   Cell)
10

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
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   ­108­2019   was   filed
before   this   Court   praying   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   miscellaneous   application   was
filed   by   certain   OBC   candidates   seeking   recall   and
modification   of   the   direction   issued   by   this   Court   on
15.05.2019  in  CWP­PIL­108­2019,  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.
The   respondents   in   their   additional   affidavit   have
placed order 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 of the applicants.
The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for
11

the   State   of   Punjab   submits   that   the   authorities   have
now   taken   a   decision   to  re­advertise   the   posts   and   fill
up the same in accordance with law.
In   view   of   the   aforesaid   facts   and   events   that   have
transpired,   we   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
CWP­PIL­108­2019.    In the 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   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 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   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   No.
1945­WG­54/17248   dated   17.3.1954,   then   the
respondent­Department   shall   pass   a   fresh   order
on   the   basis   of   the   instructions   vide   letter   No.
1945­WG­54­17246 dated 17.3.1954.”
12

has   not   yet   been   complied   with.     We   had   been   shown   an
order   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   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.”
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 de­reservation/ interchangeability of the post from
SC/ST   category   to   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.    De­reservation  of  reserved  vacancy.  – (1)  There  shall
be   no   de­reservation   of   any   reserved   vacancy   by   any
appointing authority in any establishment, which is to be
13

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 shall
remain unfilled.
(2)       Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   sub­section
(1), if, in the public interest, it is deemed necessary to fill
up   any   vacancy   referred   to   in   that   sub­section,   the
appointing   authority   shall   refer   the   vacancy   to   the
Department   of   Welfare   of   Scheduled   Castes   and
Backward   Classes   for   de­reservation.     Upon   such
reference, the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes
and   Backward   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 de­reserved, shall be carried forward against a
subsequent unreserved vacancy.  “
16. From the bare reading of the aforesaid, it is clear that
de­reservation 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   non­availability   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   de­reservation   of   the   said   unfilled   vacancy.   On
such   request   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
14

department. 
17. In   this   context,   the   instructions   issued   vide   Policy
letter No. 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   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.”
18. The   aforesaid   Policy   letter   was   withdrawn   vide   letter
No. 13565­4WGI­64/23892 dated 11 th
 November, 1964, but
it was again restored adding some conditions vide letter No.
1346­SW1­74/11491   dated   20.06.1974;   the   relevant
extract of such instruction is also reproduced as thus:
“I am directed to refer to the subject noted above and
to say that prior to 11 th
  November, 1964, in the event
of   non­availability   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   reserved   vacancies   was   withdrawn   –
vide   para   4   of   Punjab   Government   letter   No.   13565­
4WG1­64/23892 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 other generally.
15

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
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 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   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 No. 1346­SW1­74/11491 dated 20 th
June, 1994 and letter No. 771­SW1­76 dated 6 th
  April,
1976,   on   the   subject   noted   above,   and   to   say   while
giving  the   benefits  of   interchangeability   to  a   backward
Class candidate and vice­versa, the Department do not
obtain   no­objection   certificate   from   the   Department   of
Welfare   of   Scheduled   Castes   and   Backward   Classes
despite clear provision in the instructions.   To make it
clear, under the instructions, no­objection certificate is
a must before the vacancy meant for Scheduled Castes
person   is   offered   to   a   Backward   Class   candidate   and
vice­versa.
2. Its receipt may please be acknowledged.”
16

20. From   the   above   it   is   clear   that   as   per   Section   7   of
2006   Act,   de­reservation   for   the   reserved   vacancy   by   the
appointing   authority   is   restricted.   The   said   de­reservation
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 assigning those reasons. Thus, in the context
of   2006   Act   also   the   de­reservation   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. 1945­WG­54­17246 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 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   authority.   In   the   said   context,   the   letters
17

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   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.
108­2019   was   entertained   to   save   the   life   of   protesting
youth, and it should not be influenced by misplaced 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   the   order   impugned.   At   this
18

stage it cannot be lost sight that the merit list was prepared
in   furtherance   to   the   advertisement   of   the   year   2015­2016
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 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 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 by learned senior counsel Mr. Patwalia
in   this   regard   is   hereby   repelled.   As   stated   by   the
19

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.
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.
………………………….J.
[ INDIRA BANERJEE ]
……………………………J.
NEW DELHI ; [ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
MARCH 9, 2022.
20