Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. On the other hand Sri C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government, would submit that the appellant-writ petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate; having participated in the selection process, and having failed to get selected, the appellant-writ petitioner cannot now turn around and question the selection process undertaken to fill up the 153 posts referred to in the advertisement dated 03.01.2017; the appellant-writ petitioner cannot take advantage of the bonafide mistake, committed on behalf of the respondents, in furnishing wrong information under the RTI Act to the effect that these 151 posts had been included in the advertisement dated 03.01.2017; the appellant-writ petitioner had submitted her application nearly three weeks after the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.01.2017; if she was really aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the 151 posts, carried forward from the 2014 selection year, she ought to have approached this Court soon after the said judgment, and should not have waited till the entire selection process had been completed and the result had been declared on 31.05.2018, before filing this writ petition on 27.07.2018; acceding to the appellant-writ petitioner's request, for inclusion of these 151 posts in the 2017 selection process, would deprive other candidates, who did not submit their applications on the ground that a limited number of 153 posts had alone been advertised, to submit their applications; if such candidates had known that the total number of posts to be filled up would be 304 instead of 153, they may also have applied, and participated for selection to the 304 posts; any direction issued by this Court to the respondents, to fill up these 151 carried forward posts only from those who had participated in the selection process of 2017 but were not selected, would only result in further litigation, and those, who had not applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.01.2017, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court questioning the action of the respondents in filling up posts more than what was advertised; these 151 posts have now been included in the 2019 recruitment process, and a requisition has been sent to the Subordinate Selection Commission on 08.05.2019 for the Kumaun region, and on 28.05.2019 for Garhwal region; and these 151 posts would now be filled up in the 2019 recruitment process. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would rely on Pradeep Kumar Rai and others v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others[2]; Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others[3]; and D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom and others[4]).

28. While the order of the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2339 of 2016 dated 07.01.2017, undoubtedly necessitates compliance, and both the State Government and the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission have failed to discharge their obligations to comply with the directions of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, what we are called upon to examine is what can be done at this belated stage when almost all the advertised 153 posts (other than the 20 posts yet to be filled up) have been filled up by selecting candidates in their order of merit. Accepting the appellant-writ petitioner's contention that the 151 carried forward posts should be filled-up only from those who participated in the 2017 selection process, would result in the law declared by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments being flouted, for it is not possible for an errata to be now issued, to the advertisement dated 03.01.2017, at this belated stage when the selection process has been completed, and most of the advertised 153 posts have already been filled up.

29. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has faulted the appellant-writ petitioner for not approaching the Court earlier, and for waiting till the selection process was completed before she invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The appellant-writ petitioner claims that it is because she was misled by the respondents, in their reply to the queries raised by her under the Right to Information Act as to whether these 151 carried forward posts had been included in the advertisement, that she did not approach this Court earlier. While it is evident from the reply furnished to the appellant-writ petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, that the respondents have falsely stated that these 151 carried forward posts had been included in the advertisement dated 03.01.2017, the appellant-writ petitioner has not stated as to why, despite being so informed by the respondents, she nonetheless filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2381 of 2018 before this Court on 27.07.2018.

37. Reliance placed on the interlocutory order passed by us, in this Special Appeal on 02.07.2019, is also of no avail. It is true that, in the said order, we had observed that, since the selection process had not yet been completed, we were inclined to direct the respondents to fill-up these 151 carried forward posts also with the most meritorious of the remaining candidates. We had, however, deferred hearing of the Special Appeal to enable the respondents to seek review of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2339 of 2016 dated 07.01.2017. It is also true that the modification/clarification application (MCC No. 733 of 2019) preferred by respondents 2 and 4 in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2339 of 2016 was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 05.08.2019. The fact, however, remains that the order passed by us, in this Special Appeal on 02.07.2019, is interlocutory in character, and the observations made therein were without noticing the law declared by the Supreme Court, in the judgments, referred to hereinabove, that posts, beyond those advertised, should ordinarily not be filled up. Passing a final order, strictly in terms of the earlier interim order dated 02.07.2019, would result in the law declared by the Supreme Court that more posts, than that which have been advertised, should not ordinarily be filled up, being flouted in the process. Such a course of action is impermissible.