Delhi Judicial Services Rules | No Appointment From Waitlist If Selected Candidate Resigns After Joining | Vacancy To Be Filled Only Through Fresh Recruitment: Delhi HC
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla has held that a vacancy arising from the resignation of a candidate who had duly joined the Delhi Judicial Service must be treated as a fresh vacancy and cannot be filled from the existing waitlist. The Court dismissed a petition seeking appointment to such a vacancy, stating that under the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970, only vacancies arising from failure to join service within the stipulated period may be offered to candidates in the waitlist. The Court directed that such fresh vacancies must be filled through a new recruitment process. The judgment further clarified that the rules governing judicial services are distinct from Department of Personnel and Training guidelines applicable to Central Civil Services, and DoPT instructions cannot override the statutory provisions of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970.
The matter concerned a petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court to seek appointment to a seat in the Delhi Judicial Services Examination, 2022, which became vacant after the resignation of a candidate. The examination notification dated 24 February 2022 invited applications to fill 123 vacancies. The petitioner participated, qualified preliminary and mains examinations, and secured the 93rd rank in the final results declared on 24 March 2023. A merit list of 301 candidates, including selected and waitlisted individuals, was prepared. Under the unreserved category, 85 seats were recommended, along with 3 for Persons with Disabilities in the General category, 6 for Scheduled Caste category, and 16 for Scheduled Tribe category.
Also Read: Supreme Court Warns: ‘No Five-Star Treatment in Jail —or Superintendent Will Be Suspended’"
A total of 88 general category candidates were offered appointment, and the petitioner was fifth in the unreserved waitlist. Four general category candidates did not join, and their vacancies were filled by the first four waitlisted candidates, who joined on 20 March 2024. Subsequently, one of these candidates, Ms. Riya Goyal, resigned on 26 March 2024 due to her appointment in the Punjab Judicial Services. Her resignation was accepted by notification dated 10 May 2024, and she was relieved on 17 May 2024.
The petitioner, upon learning of this resignation, sent a representation on 28 March 2024 seeking appointment to the vacancy. Receiving no response, she filed the present petition. She contended that, being next in the waitlist, she was entitled to the appointment, arguing that the purpose of a waitlist is to fill vacancies arising from non-joining or resignation during the training period. The petitioner referred to Rule 18(vii) of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970, which states that the select list remains valid until the next select list is prepared, and argued there was no express bar to appointments from the waitlist in such cases. She also relied on an Office Memorandum dated 13 June 2000 issued by the DoPT and the case of Sujal Gautam & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which allowed filling vacancies from the reserve panel if they arose within one year of appointment due to resignation.
The petitioner also alleged that Ms. Riya Goyal had concealed her selection to the Punjab Judicial Services at the time of joining the Delhi Judicial Service, rendering her appointment void ab initio, and that the petitioner should therefore be offered the seat.
The respondents opposed the petition, stating that under Rule 18(vi) of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970, only vacancies arising from failure to join within the stipulated time may be filled from the waitlist. They cited Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi and Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. State of Haryana to assert that vacancies caused by resignation after joining are fresh vacancies, requiring fresh recruitment. They further argued that in 2018, a similar vacancy caused by resignation had not been filled from the waitlist, following a resolution by the Examination-cum-Judicial Education and Training Programme Committee on 3 February 2020, in line with Rakhi Ray.
The respondents also stated that DoPT guidelines do not apply to judicial services, which are governed by state-specific judicial service rules.
The Court recorded that Rule 18 of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules, 1970 deals with recommendations following competitive examinations and the joining of selected candidates. It noted: "Rule 18(vii) says that the select list prepared for all categories of officials shall be valid till the next select list is published... however rule 18(vi) mandates that the select list would be utilized only for the purpose of appointment in case a vacancy is created by virtue of clause (v) of rule 18." The Court stated that Rule 18(v) only addresses vacancies arising from failure to join and "does not envisage any eventuality... after joining due to any reasons of resignation, death, candidature declared illegal etc."
It further stated: "Given the existing rules, since all the 88 seats candidates recommended under the unreserved category came to join, there was no vacant seat available to accommodate the petitioner in terms of rule 18(vi)... if all the vacancies initially stood filled and, subsequently, one or more... tender their resignation after duly joining... such vacancies will be treated as fresh vacancies which could not be filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the due process."
The Court rejected reliance on DoPT's Office Memorandum, noting: "The judicial administrative and service conditions in India are governed by state specific judicial service rules rather than by the Department of Personnel and Training... DoPT and CCS rules are not applicable to the members of the judiciary."
It also distinguished the Sujal Gautam case as pertaining to recruitment by the UPSC for CAPFs and CISF, not judicial services. The Court referred to its own 2020 decision in Akansha Singh, which accepted the committee's resolution based on Rakhi Ray that vacancies from resignation after joining cannot be filled from the waitlist. It also cited Dr. Shashi Bhushan v. University of Delhi, where a similar principle was applied in a non-judicial context.
The Court concluded that the petition lacked merit and that the petitioner was not entitled to appointment against the vacancy arising from Ms. Riya Goyal's resignation. It held that such vacancy is to be treated as fresh and filled through a new recruitment process. The judgment stated: "As a sequel to the above, the present petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner is not legally entitled to be appointed against the vacancy arising out of the resignation of Ms. Riya Goyal as per the existing Delhi Judicial Services rules, 1970." The Court did not address the alleged misconduct of Ms. Goyal, stating: "This court has purposefully not entered into the arena of the misconduct alleged... as the same is not under challenge in this writ petition." It directed that the judgment be placed before the Rules Committee for reconsideration of appointment rules. No order as to costs was made.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. J Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhinav Garg, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Mr. Luv Kumar, and Mr. Manwendra Gautam, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Thakur and Mr. Apurv Gaur, Advs.
Case Title: Aadya Antya v. High Court of Delhi Through Registrar General
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9811-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 5830/2024
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla
