Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

 f)     Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India (UOI)
             reported in AIR 1991 SC 1612.

      g)     Sugar Singh Meena S/O Shri Ratti Ram Vs. Union

of India [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7256/2022] decided on 25.05.2022.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent department vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the total posts can be increased or reduced according to the Rules of 1966 and so the seats have been added before selection as per the advertisement No. 1/2023 dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure 1) and it is as per Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966. The Rule 16 of Rules of 1966 provides for addition and reduction in posts, if intimation of additional requirement is received before selection process is completed. He [2024:RJ-JD:37111] (18 of 43) [CW-10947/2024] further argued that the respondent department received an intimation of additional requirement during the recruitment process as certain posts have become vacant due to promotions. With this view, the respondent department increased the posts in pursuance of Rule 16 of the Rules 1966 and in accordance with the note provided in advertisement No. 1/2023 dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure 1) and the rule specifies that the added seats should not exceed 50% of the total vacancies. He contended that Rule 9 of the Rules of 1966 which states determination of vacancies starts with "subject to the provisions of Rules" so the vacancies are determined every year subject to the provisions of Rules of 1966 and Rule 16 of the Rules of 1966 provides that if intimation of the additional requirement is received before selection process is completed then the same can be added. The proviso to Rule 16 is in consonance with law as the same has increased opportunities for the persons who have already become part of the recruitment process after filling the application form as they were eligible at that time but the petitioners were not eligible on that day, so equity lies in favour of the persons who filled the application forms to get advantage of increase posts before selection process comes to an end. He further submitted that the 50% rule has been made with a view that the persons who were eligible at the initial stage of the process can be given opportunity for the added seats and the advantage of add on seats can be given to the candidates who filled the form at initial date of advertisement. The 50% addition or enhancement in [2024:RJ-JD:37111] (19 of 43) [CW-10947/2024] seats is in accordance with law and is rational and quashing of additional posts as prayed by the petitioners would show that petitioners would take part in the recruitment for which they were not eligible and therefore prayed for dismissing the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent department further argued that since the addition of seats has been made in accordance with the express rule therefore unless a prayer for declaration of particular rule to be ultra-vires is not made; the instant petition would not be maintainable before this Court. Learned counsels in support of their contention have placed reliance the following judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court:-

[2024:RJ-JD:37111] (40 of 43) [CW-10947/2024]

18. Permitting the respondent department for adding on 247 seats in existing selection process would be against the concept of equal opportunity guaranteed by the Constitution of India which ensures all interested individuals having the same ability to access chance of receiving particular resource such as employment without discrimination based on irrelevant factors. Article 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equal opportunities to all citizens in matters related to employment in the public sector or any office under the State. This constitutional provision serves as the bedrock for fair and non-discriminatory practices in matters of public employment. All the citizens should have been given equal chance of being employed or appointed to a State office prohibiting discrimination based on any unreasonable and improper factor. No rule of law would like to see benefiting a class of citizen and closing the opportunity for the others. Rules are made for its use for betterment of the societal interest but, for sure, not made for being misused by the authorities. Taking resort of a provision, the State authorities can't be allowed to snatch reasonable opportunities from the others for which they are otherwise eligible. I am of the firm opinion that division of vacancy cannot be permitted to benefit some and causing loss to the others. If the total subsequently accrued vacancy i.e., 369 posts would have fallen within the ambit of Rule 16 of the Rules 1966, then it would be a different thing. In my considered opinion, Rule 16 has been framed for the above purpose only and therefore it cannot be allowed to be [2024:RJ-JD:37111] (41 of 43) [CW-10947/2024] misused. Adding on half of the vacancy after almost 8 months of the commencement of the process that too by dividing/splitting the vacancy is not only beyond the purview of Rule 16 but also the same is illegal and unreasonable. After anxious consideration of the legal and factual aspect of the matter, this Court is of the view that the reasonability and propriety would be to allow the State authorities to complete the selection process for the advertised vacancies only without adding on additional vacancy and a new selection process should be commenced for whatever vacancies has arisen till now so that every individual can be given opportunities to contest. In the new process, all the aspirants who are eligible till now shall be eligible to participate. It won't be justifiable or reasonable to permit increase opportunities to those candidates only who applied till 05.11.2023 by enhancement of more seats after almost 8 months and lessening the opportunity to the others who are eligible at the time of adding on of the seats. If the opportunity is not given for the vacancies which are being added now to the candidates who are eligible from all aspects as on date; then, in my considered view the same would be very unfortunate and against the spirit of law and justice and would be in conflict with the constitutional guarantee.