The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that no employee belonging to the general category can insist that a reserved vacancy must necessarily be de-reserved for his benefit.
“The policy relating to reservation in public employment is intended to secure adequate representation to members of the reserved categories. Consequently, de-reservation of a reserved vacancy is an exception and not the rule. Such de-reservation can be resorted to only in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, executive instructions and governmental policy, and only after approval by the competent authority,” the bench of justice Namit Kumar said while dismissing a plea filed by Patiala resident Vijay Kumar Gupta.
In his petition, filed in 2023, Gupta, working as environmental engineer in the Punjab Pollution Control Board, had sought directions to the state government to promote him to the post of senior environmental engineer from the date of departmental promotion committee meeting (May 31, 2022), when his name was recommended for promotion to the post against the backlog vacancy of the reserved category.
The DPC had recommended his promotion against a vacancy meant for Scheduled Castes category, subject to the approval by the department of social justice, empowerment and minorities. The department, however, refused to de-reserve the post to the general category. Hence, Gupta was not promoted and he subsequently retired on October 31, 2022. After his multiple representations were not considered, Gupta moved court in 2023.
The court said the DPC, while assessing his suitability, did not recommend his promotion unconditionally. “The recommendation specifically stipulated that the petitioner could be promoted only if the reserved vacancy was de-reserved. Thus, the recommendation itself was conditional and incapable of implementation unless the department of social justice, empowerment and minorities authority granted approval for de-reservation,” it said, adding that a DPC recommendation does not, by itself, create a vested or indefeasible right to promotion. “A conditional recommendation cannot be equated with a final recommendation entitling an employee to claim promotion as a matter of right,” it added.
{{/usCountry}}The court said the DPC, while assessing his suitability, did not recommend his promotion unconditionally. “The recommendation specifically stipulated that the petitioner could be promoted only if the reserved vacancy was de-reserved. Thus, the recommendation itself was conditional and incapable of implementation unless the department of social justice, empowerment and minorities authority granted approval for de-reservation,” it said, adding that a DPC recommendation does not, by itself, create a vested or indefeasible right to promotion. “A conditional recommendation cannot be equated with a final recommendation entitling an employee to claim promotion as a matter of right,” it added.
{{/usCountry}}“Once the proposal for de-reservation was rejected by the department concerned, the very foundation upon which the DPC recommendation rested disappeared. The recommendation consequently became incapable of implementation. The respondents cannot be faulted for refusing to issue a promotion order in the absence of approval for de-reservation,” the court added, while dismissing the plea.