Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar And 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P.And 3 Ors. on 9 September, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1781, 2019 (12) ADJ 33 NOC 2020 (138) ALR SOC 1 (ALL), 2020 (138) ALR SOC 1 (ALL)
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35705 of 2013 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar And 3 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Irshad Ali,Ashok Khare,Deepak Kumar Srivastava,Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Connected with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43960 of 2012 Petitioner :- Syyad Rizwan Abbash And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Irshad Ali,Ashok Khare,Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Utkarsh Birla learned Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Vishal Tandon learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents.
The two connected writ petitions have been filed in the months of August, 2012 and May, 2013 by (12+4) petitioners; respectively, for the common relief seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give appointment to them to the post of Sinchpal (Patrol) in pursuance of the selection proceeding initiated vide advertisement dated 20.9.2011 published in the daily newspaper 'Amar Ujala' within a specified period and to pay them salary regularly month by month from the date of their appointment.
During the pendency of the present writ petition, the amendment application dated 25.3.2014 had been filed in Writ Petition No. 43960 of 2012 (Syyad Rizwan Abbash and Others vs. State Of U.P. and Others) seeking for a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 2.4.2012 passed by the Executive Engineer, Sharda Canal Division, Shahjahanpur for cancellation of the wait list of 26 persons in Group 'C' with immediate effect.
From the record, it appears that the said amendment application is pending. No counter affidavit to the amendment application has been filed. The question to consider the relief sought by way of amendment would be considered in the later part of this judgment at an appropriate stage.
The facts in brief relevant is to decide the controversy at hands are that all the petitioners claimed to have been selected by the Selection Committee constituted to assess their general suitability and that they were kept in the wait list of the selected candidates.
As per the submission of four petitioners in Writ Petition No. 35705 of 2013 (Manoj Kumar and 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. and 3 others), they were interviewed by the Selection Committee between 14.6.2009 to 18.6.2009 and the wait list dated 21.10.2011 of selected candidates containing their names is appended as Annexure-'2' to the said writ petition.
As per the claim of 12 petitioners in Writ Petition No. 43960 of 2012, they were interviewed by the Selection Committee between 18.10.2011 to 25.10.2011 and three wait lists of the same date 29.10.2011, were prepared by the Selection Committee (appended as Annexure-'4' to the said writ petition) which contained their names.
All the petitioners claimed that after their selection, they had successfully undergone three months training as unpaid apprentices and were given certificates on completion of the said training. They had also cleared the departmental examination held on 29.2.2012, result of which was declared on 1.3.2012. The contention is that the wait-lists dated 21.10.2011 and 29.10.2011, as aforesaid, were prepared in accordance with the Rule 14 of the Irrigation Department Patrols Service Rules, 1953 (In short as "the Rules, 1953"), which provides for preparation of a wait list of the candidates selected by the selection committee as per Rule 12 of the Rules, 1953. The said list had been prepared against the existing as also future vacancies of the department.
In Writ Petition No. 35705 of 2013, it is stated in paragraph '11' that in the Irrigation Department, there were 25 posts of Sinchpal (Patrols), 8 posts of Sinch Paryavekshak and one post of Ziledar. Out of total 34 posts in view of the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1953, 20% candidates (of the total posts), who were found suitable in the selection proceedings, had to be kept in the wait list, accordingly, six candidates were placed in the wait list prepared on 21.10.2011 pursuant to the selection proceedings held between 14.6.2009 to 18.6.2009.
In Writ Petition no. 43960 of 2012, it is contended in paragraph '12' that in Sharda Nahar Khand, Shahjahanpur, there were 94 posts of Sinchpal (Patrols), 22 Amins, 3 Ziledars and 11 Munsies. Thus, total 130 posts were duly sanctioned by the State Government. 20% of the said total number of posts comes to 26 and accordingly, a wait list of selected candidates (26 in number) was prepared.
In the counter affidavits to the aforesaid writ petitions, the averments as noted above have not been denied.
In reply to paragraph '12' of the Writ Petition No. 43960 of 2012, it is stated therein that 8 posts of Sinchpal (Patrols) were vacant and hence the same were advertised to be filled through a regular selection. However, the said selection was challenged in Writ Petition No. 60334 of 2011 (Sichai Sangh and others vs. State of U.P. and others), the services of six Sinchpal appointed pursuant to the said selection were terminated vide order dated 26.10.2012. Remaining 2 selected candidates had been transferred to another division and resultantly services of all 8 persons selected as Sinchpal pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.9.2011 had been dispensed with. The wait list of 26 persons had been cancelled vide order dated 2.4.2012. Further the notification dated 14.9.2011 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Irrigation, U.P., whereunder the advertisement dated 20.9.2011 was issued, had also been stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 60334 of 2011 vide order dated 3.11.2011.
In the counter affidavit to the Writ Petition No. 35705 of 2013, it is contended that the wait list dated 21.10.2011 of 26 candidates had lapsed with the completion of the selection proceedings i.e. preparation of the select list and, moreover, it had lost its validity after a period of one year. As eight selected candidates were given appointment and joined against the vacant posts and no one was given appointment from the wait list, the petitioners therein cannot claim appointment.
Further four posts of Sinchpal, which became vacant in the year 2012-13 could not be filled from the wait list of the previous years selection 2010-11.
In the rejoinder, the petitioners taking aid of the Rule 14 of Rules, 1953 submit that the wait list was to be kept alive in perpetuity and the stand of the respondents that it had outlived its life after one year, is incorrect.
In the supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 35705 of 2013, it is contended that out of total 94 posts of Sinchpal in Sharda Nahar Khand, Shahjahanpur, 55 posts became vacant during pendency of the present writ petition. The selected candidates, whose appointments were cancelled vide termination order dated 13.9.2012 filed a Writ Petition No. 60830 of 2012 (Vinay Kumar Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others), which had been allowed vide judgment and order dated 26.11.2012, resulting in restoration of their appointment. Resultantly, six selected persons had been reinstated vide office orders dated 27.4.2013.
In the light of the above pleadings, it is vehemently contended by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that as per the scheme of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1953, the wait listed candidates were to be appointed against the subsequent vacancies, till the said lists were exhausted. It was not open for the respondents either to cancel the wait list of 26 persons (dated 29.10.2011) by order dated 2.4.2012 or to take stand with regard to the six wait listed persons (of the list dated 21.10.2011) that the same had outlived its life after one year from the date of selection. It is, thus, contended that all the writ petitioners herein were entitled to get appointmemt against the vacancies to the post of Sinchpal (Patrol) which arose in the department subsequent to selection of eight candidates against the then existing vacancies, till the aforesaid wait lists were exhausted.
Reliance has been placed on the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraphs '20' and '21' of the report in Naseem Ahmad and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1 to submit that where the wait list has no limited life under the statutory rule, the appointment of wait listed candidates against the subsequent vacancies cannot be held illegal.
Sri Vishal Tandon learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents, on the other hand, vehemently contends that the wait list contemplated in Rule 14 of the Rules, 1953 is in fact the select list was prepared by the Selection Committee for the purpose of appointment made under Rule 15 of the Rules, 1953, as against the substantive permanent vacancies and further on temporary or adhoc basis in stop-gap-arrangement only. The wait listed candidates cannot claim appointment against subsequent substantive vacancies as the said list stood exhausted with the completion of selection. Moreover, the wait listed candidates could claim appointment only against the existing and anticipated vacancies in a year of recruitment which was 2011-12 in the present case. As against the vacancies of the subsequent years, the petitioners cannot be considered as the said vacancies have to be notified for Direct recruiment as per Rule 5 of the Rules, 1953.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, in view of the stand taken by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that all wait listed candidates herein are entitled to substantive appointment under the Rules, 1953, inasmuch as, the wait list is a list of selected candidates in perpetuity, it would be apt to go through the entire scheme of the Rules, 1953 which governs the recruitment to the post in question.
Rule 2(kha) of the definition clause of the Rules, 1953 provides the meaning of "Committee" "being the Selection Committee" constituted under the rules. Rule 5 states that appointment to the services under the Rules, 1953 would be by direct recruitment. Rules 8 to 11 provides for eligibility/qualification and the maximum age limit for appointment in the services under the Rules, 1953.
Rules 12, 13, 14 and 15 relevant for the purpose of present controversy are to be quoted hereunder:-
"12- भर्ती की रीति- समिति निम्नलिखित बातों का ध्यान रखते हुये उम्मीदवारो में से चुनाव करेंगी:- (1) अच्छा शरीर- गठन, (2) फुर्तीलापन (Active habits), और।
(3) जगह के लिये समान्य रुप से उपयुक्तता (General suitability) चुने गये उम्मीदवारों की समिति डिवीजनों में तैनात करेगी और समिति का संयोजक (convener) चुने गये उम्मीदवारों के नामों की तथा डिवीजनों की सूचना सुपरिन्टेंडिंग इंजीनियर को देगा, जिनमें उन्हें तैनात किया गया हो।
13- अन्तेवासी (अपरेंटिस) की हैसियत से काम करना और विभागीय परीक्षा (apprentice ship and departmental examination)- चुने गये उम्मीदवार उस डिवीजन में, जहाँ व तैनात किये गये हो, किसी अनुभवी पतरौल के अधीन तीन महीने अवैतनिक (unpaid) अन्तेवासी (apprentice) की हैसियत से काम करेंगे। इस अवधि के अन्त में उन्हे नहर के पतरौल के कार्य और कर्तव्यों के सम्बन्ध में एक क्रियात्मक परीक्षा (Practical examination) पास करनी होगी। इस परीक्षा का संचालन इस प्रयोजन के लिये एक्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर द्वारा नियुक्त किये गये एक डिप्टी रेवेन्यू अफसर और एक जिलेदार करेंगे। परीक्षा में सफल होने वाले उम्मीदवारों को एक प्रमाण-पत्र (certificate) दिया जायेगा।
14- प्रतीक्षा-सूची- (क) नियम 12 के उपबन्धों के अधीन चुने गये उम्मीदवारों के नाम, इस शर्त के अधीन कि वे नियम 13 में निर्धारित विभागीय परीक्षा पास कर ले अनुमोदित (Approved) उम्मीदवारों की सूची में उन व्यक्तियों के नीचे, जिनके नाम सूची में पहले से है, अन्त की तारीख के क्रम से निम्नलिखित ब्योंरो सहित दर्ज कर लिये जायेंगे-
(1) उम्मीदवार का नाम।
(2) पिता का नाम।
(3) शिक्षा सम्बन्धी प्रमाण - पत्र के अनुसार जन्म की तारीख।
(4) शिक्षा सम्बन्धी योग्यतायें।
(5) घर का पता।
(6) विशेष विवरण (Remark) (ख) डिवीजन की अनुमोदित सूची उम्मीदवारों की किसी भी दशा में जिलेदारो, अमीनों, पतरौलों और मुन्शियों के डिवीजनल कैडर के योग के 20 प्रतिशत से अधिक न होगी।
(ग) ऐसे उम्मीदवारो के नाम इस सूची से काट दिये जायेंगे जो कोई उपयुक्त कारण बताये बिना स्थानापन्न रिक्त पदों पर काम करने से इनकार करेंगे या किसी रिक्त पद स्थानापन्न रुप से काम किये बिना 25 वर्ष की आयु प्राप्त लेंगे। एक्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर यदि चाहे, तो ऐसे उम्मीदवारों को इस नियम के लागू होने से मुक्त कर सकता है। जो 25 वर्ष की आयु प्राप्त करने से पहले किसी रिक्त पद पर स्थानापन्न रुप से काम कर चुके हों।
15- नियुक्ति- (1) स्थायी पदों के रिक्त होने पर एक्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर, इस सेवा में जहां तक सम्भव हो, नियम 14 के अधीन तैयार की गई सूची में से उम्मीदवारों को नियुक्त करेगा। इस सेवा में वे उस क्रम से लिये जायेंगे जिस क्रम में उनके नाम इस सूची में दिये हों।
(2) एक्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर अस्थायी या स्थानापन्न रुप में रिक्त पदों पर ऐसे व्यक्तियों को नियुक्त कर सकता है जो इन नियमों के अधीन सेवा में स्थायी रुप से नियुक्त किये जाने के योग्य हों।
(3) यदि कोई स्वीकृत उम्मीदवार उपलब्ध न हो, तो एक्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर स्थानापन्न या अस्थायी रुप से रिक्त पद पर किसी ऐसे व्यक्ति को संयुक्त कर सकता है, जिसका नाम प्रतीक्षा-सूची में न हो, परन्तु ऐसी नियुक्ति छः महीने से अधिक अवधि के लिये न होगा।"
A conjoined reading of the above noted provisions indicate that under Rule 12 which provides for method of recruitment, the Selection Committee has to prepare a list of suitable candidates division-wise after assessment of general suitability of the candidates.
In the instant case, the said assessment was made with the interview of the candidates.
Rule 13 states that the selected candidates (as per Rule 12) shall be sent for three months training as unpaid apprentice and at the end of the said training, they shall be required to pass a practical examination. All those candidates who have been declared successful will be given a certificate.
Rule 14(ka) provides that all selected candidates under Rule 12 shall be kept in a list below the approved candidates (whose names have already been kept there), subject to the condition that they will clear/pass departmental examination (practical examination as aforesaid).
Rule 14(kha) further states that the Division wise approved list of candidates shall not be of more than 20% of the total posts in the divisional cadre including all Ziledars, Amin (Patrols) and Munshi.
Rule 14(ga) states that names of all such candidates shall be deleted from the aforesaid list who refuse to work in stop-gap-arrangement or on adhoc basis or attain the age of 25 years without ever working on adhoc basis against a vacant post.
Rule 15 provides for appointment both on regular as well as adhoc basis in a stop-gap-arrangement. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 appointment against the permanent vacant post will be made from the list of candidates prepared under Rule 14, as far as possible, in the same order as they have been placed in the said list.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 provides that temporary appointment against the vacant posts can be made by the Executive Engineer only of such persons who are eligible to get permanent appointment. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 further states that in case of non-availability of approved candidates, the Executive Engineer can make appointment on temporary or adhoc basis against a vacant post of such person whose name has not been found in the wait list, subject to the condition that such an appointment would not be made for more than a period of six months.
The aforesaid scheme of the Rules, 1953, thus, makes it clear that the select list which has been termed as "wait list" in Rule 14(ka) is a tentative list prepared by the Selection Committee as per Rule 12 of the Rules, 1953 of those candidates who are found suitable by it. The condition is that the said wait listed candidates shall be kept below the approved candidates in one list. The "wait listed candidates" shall have to complete apprenticeship and clear departmental examination for being termed as "approved candidates" for the purpose of appointment under rule 15 (1)&(2) of the Rules, 1953. The appointment against substantive vacant post on permanent basis has to be made from the list mentioned in Rule 14(kha) which is a list of "approved candidates" after fulfilling conditions of Rule 14(ka).
From the further reading of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 15, it is clear that even temporary or adhoc appointment against a substantive vacancy has to be made by the Executive Engineer from the list of eligible candidates prepared under Rule 14. But in any case appointment against substantive vacancies, can be made only through direct recruitment as per Rule 5 of the Rules, 1953. That means, the vacancies have to be notified for inviting applications from eligible candidates. The candidates kept in the wait list under Rule 14(ka) prepared under Rule 12 by the Selection Committee have to complete training and pass practical examination so as to become eligible or "approved candidates" for being kept in the Division wise list prepared under Rule 14(kha).
From the reading of clause (ga) of Rule 14 alongwith sub-rule (2) and (3) of Rule 15, it appears that the aforesaid list of "approved candidates" is being kept alive for the purpose of making temporary arrangement against the vacant posts subject to regular selection. The expression "wait list" used in Rule 14 to the list which is prepared for the purpose of appointment under sub-rule (1) & (2) of Rule 15 cannot be given the meaning as contended by the petitioners, of being a "wait list in perpetuity" for substantive appointment against the future vacancies. In other words, the "wait list of approved candidates" as contemplated under Rule 14 (ka) and (kha) cannot be said to be a "wait list in perpetuity" for appointment against substantive vacancies under Rule 15(1) of the Rules, 1953 which do not exist in the given year of selection.
In the opinion of the Court, the expression "wait list" has been used in Rule 14 in view of scheme of clause (ka) which contemplates that a list of suitable candidates be prepared by the Selection Committee subject to them passing the departmental examination under Rule 13 and Clause (kha) which provides for preparation of a "wait list of approved candidates" to the extent of 20% of the total posts, who can be given appointment on temporary or adhoc basis against substantive vacancies occuring from time to time. And for this reason only clause (ga) of Rule 14 provides that if an "approved candidate" refuse to work on adhoc basis or had not worked as such uptil the age of 25 years, his name would be deleted from the said list.
Under the statutory scheme though the "wait list" prepared under Rule 14(kha) of "approved candidate" has not been given a limited life but it cannot be accepted that the said "wait list" is to be used for filling the vacancies not available in the year of recruitment i.e. for future vacancies occurring in the department over the years, on substantive basis, more so, when appointment in services is by direct recruitment. The scheme of direct recruitment in service as per Rule 5 of the Rules, 1953 itself contemplates notification of substantive vacancies and assessment of suitability of all applicants as per Rule 12 and 13 of the Rules, 1953 for filling the same.
The expression "wait list" in Rule 14 of the Rules, 1953 by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a "wait list in perpetuity", to be used or exhausted against future substantive vacancies which were not either anticipated or likely vacancies. Such an interpretation to the said expression would lead to incongruity and ambiguity.
To be more precise, the Rules 1953 in essence are for providing procedure for direct recruitment to the services concerned (in question). Rule 12 to 14 of the Rules, 1953 provide for different stages of selection. At the first stage of selection as per Rule 12, the wait list of suitable candidates under clause (ka) of Rule 14 is to be prepared. As is clear from the language of Rule 14 (ka), the candidates who were found suitable by the Selection Committee under Rule 12 have to be kept below the candidates who have been approved for selection, subject to the conditions that they clear the departmental examination under Rule 13.
Rule 14(kha) speaks of "अनुमोदित सूची" means list of "approved candidates" of those who have been selected finally after clearing all stages of selection, i.e. those who have to be given appointment against substantive vacancies in order of their merit. The list as contemplated in Rule 14(ka) and 14(kha) are, thus, two different lists prepared at two stages of selection.
The lists in question i.e. the wait lists dated 21.10.2011 and 29.10.2011 in the instant case, can be clearly understood as the "wait list" prepared at the first stage of selection [as per Rule 14(ka)] after assessment of suitability of all candidates by the Selection Committee. The candidates kept in the said list cannot have any legitimate expectation for appointment against the vacancies notified in the advertisement dated 20.9.2011.
They can at best, only be understood as the "prospective candidates" waiting for their place in the final select list of "approved candidates" [as per Rule 14(kha)] after completion of training and passing of the departmental examination. There is no dispute about the fact that all the petitioners herein had completed requisite training and also passed the departmental examination but they could not get a chance for selection against the existing vacancies as "approved candidates" who were higher placed in the list were given appointment against the existing vacancies. It is not the case of the petitioners that any of the appointee was below them in the merit list or ineligible for appointment. The appointment of none of them has been challenged.
Going further, though the expression "wait list" in rule 14 is used both for the list prepared at the first stage under sub-clause(ka) of "suitable candidates" and the final list under sub-clause (kha) of the "approved candidates" to the extent of 20% of the total posts in the Divisional cadre. But by reading of Rule 15(1), (2) and (3) together, there remains no doubt that the "wait list" as contemplated in Rule 14(kha) is to be used for the purpose of permanent appointment against existing or anticipated vacancies, and may be used for any adhoc or temporary appointment against substantive vacancies, which may occur in the department at a later point of time. The purpose of keeping the "wait list" is, thus, for making stop-gap-arrangement.
This becomes more clear from the reading of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 which provides that if a candidate from the "wait list" is not available (who is eligible for regular appointment), short term appointment in temporary or adhoc basis can be made not exceeding six months.
Giving any other interpretation to the expression "wait list" would render the entire rule of procedure for selection to the services by direct recruitment unworkable.
The General Rule of construction of statute is not only to look at the words but to look at the context, the collocation and the object of such words relating to such matter and interpret the meaning according to what would appear to be the meaning intended to be conveyed by the rules of the words under the circumstances. Reference Jagir Singh and others vs. State of Bihar and another2.
In State of West Bengal vs. Union of India3, the then Chief Justice Mr. B.P. Sinha, speaking for the majority has said that in considering the true meaning of words or expression used by the Legislature, the Court must have regard to the aim, object and scope of the statute to be read in its entirety. The Court must ascertain the intention of the Legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clauses to be construed but to the entire Statute; it must compare the clause with the other parts of the law, and the setting in which the clause to be interpreted occurs.
The Constitution Bench in Union of India vs. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. and others4 has held that when the question arises as to the meaning of a certain provision in a Statute it is not only legitimate but proper to read that provision in its context. The context means; the statute as a whole, the previous state of law, other statutes in pari materia, the general scope of the statute and the mischief that it was intended to remedy. With reference to Corocraft Ltd. vs. Pan American Airways Inc.5 and State of Haryana vs. Sampuran Singh6 , it is noted therein that:-
"The duty of judges is to expound and not to legislate is a fundamental rule. There is no doubt a marginal area in which the courts mould or creatively interpret legislation and they are thus finishers, refiners and polishers of legislation which comes to them in a state requiring varying degrees of further processing."
In National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Anjana Shyam and others7, taking note of the proposition propounded in 1846 by Dr. Lushington in Queen V. Eduljee Byramjee [(1846) 3 MIA 468] it is held that the proposition that to ascertain the true meaning of a clause in a statute the court must look at the whole statute, at what precedes and at what succeeds and not merely at the clause itself, has been accepted and reiterated by the Apex Court in innumerable cases.
Even in the judgment relied by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, the Supreme Court has observed that the "wait list" as contemplated therein can be co-related to the number of vacancies either available in the year of recruitment or likely to become available in the succeeding year i.e. in proportion to the existing and anticipated vacancies. In the said case, the Apex Court had permitted the appellants therein to continue as they were appointed within one year of the declaration of the result.
In the light of the aforesaid, the claim of the petitioners that the select list or the wait list prepared under Rule 14 was to be kept alive in perpetuity so as to give appointment to all wait-listed candidates against future vacancies occurring in the year 2013 onwards, is not worthy of acceptance.
Before parting with this judgment, relevant is to note that the wait list of 26 candidates (with reference to the Writ Petition No. 43960 of 2012) was cancelled vide order dated 2.4.2012, which was admittedly received by the said petitioners in the month of October, 2012. The said order was also brought on record of the said writ petition along with the counter affidavit filed in the month of November, 2012.
For the reasons best known to the petitioners therein, they did not challenge the said order within a reasonable period of time. The amendment application filed on 25.3.2014, therefore, cannot be allowed to assail the said order as no explanation has been offered by the petitioners for inordinate delay in seeking amendment.
For the four petitioners in Writ Petition No. 35705 of 2013 who are claiming appointment on the basis of the list dated 21.10.2011, relevant is to note that they had approached this Court in the year 2013-14 for appointment against four vacancies which occurred in the year 2012-13. Their prayer for appointment against the future vacancies made after a period of approximately two years from the date of declaration of result, is not acceptable.
For the above discussions, both the writ petitions are found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.9.2019
Brijesh (Sunita Agarwal, J.)