Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This Court, by order dated 30.04.2013 passed in the main writ petition, ordered as follows:-

Sri S.Sreeramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appointment of the fourth respondent is questioned. However, his case is that backlog vacancies are available, in which the case of the petitioner can be considered. In the above circumstances, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner, if any SC backlog vacancy is available, pending disposal of the writ petition.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of the petitioner is not being considered only on the ground that there is no specific direction to absorb the petitioner in any backlog vacancy.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to 12 years of service put up by the petitioner, the order dated 30.04.2013 is modified as follows:-
The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to absorb the petitioner in any SC backlog vacancy available, pending disposal of the writ petition.
The WPMP is accordingly ordered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed the particulars of the backlog vacancy position before this Court. As seen from the roaster and the records maintained by the third respondent college, the third respondent college has opened a Roaster Register. In the year 1970, as against the roaster point Nos.2 and 16 which were reserved for Scheduled Caster candidates, OC candidates were working. Similarly, in the year 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980 as against roaster points 22, 27, 41, 52, 62, 66, 72, 77, 87, 91 and 97, OC candidates are working. However, it appears that one K.Nageshwar Rao was appointed against the Roaster Point No.66. Thus, the backlog position reveals that by the year 1996, there were 14 SC backlog vacancies. As far as the Commerce department is concerned, there are two backlog vacancies and it appears that the fourth respondent was recruited against one SC backlog vacancy on 13.02.2003 and as of now, one backlog vacancy still exists.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there are three backlog vacancies against the roaster point Nos.81, 87 and 90 and the fourth respondent is appointed against the SC backlog vacancy in the year 2003. Anyhow, the third respondent college is also not disputing that still one SC backlog vacancy is available in commerce department in their college. The fact remains that the petitioner was not selected by the duly constituted selection committee. It appears that the notification dated 30.08.2001 was issued and as per the said notification, the petitioner and others appeared for selection and he was placed at Sl.No.14 in the order of merit list as per the selection committee proceedings dated 26.03.2002. Since then, he was continuing in service. Now we are in 2014. Twelve years period cannot be treated as short period. It is most unfortunate situation. The fate of other candidates in the seniority list is not known. They are not before this Court. Nobody has taken any interest to implead them. They may not be aware of these proceedings. The fourth respondent was given appointment in one SC backlog vacancy. It appears that those who continue to struggle may get relief on one day or the other. However, the fact remains that no steps were taken to fill up the backlog vacancies for years together and OC candidates were allowed to work in those posts. The fact remains that the authorities did not object when the management appointed the petitioner against an aided vacancy (SC reserved vacancy). Fortunately or unfortunately, he continued to work in that post for the past 14 years may be by virtue of interim orders of this Court.