Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: anticipated vacancy in Vivek Kaisth vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 November, 2023Matching Fragments
8. The logic was that that recommendations have been made for only existing and anticipated vacancies, whereas it ought to have been made for additional posts, which would be 2/3rd of the actual and anticipated vacancies as directed in Shweta Dhingra (supra).
The minutes of the meeting dated 21.10.2013 read as under:
“The contents of judgment in CWP No. 3135/20111 were gone through wherein it has been directed that the H.P. Public Service Commission will publish a revised Select List of the candidates from the year 2010 merit list by including 2/3 of the actual and anticipated vacancies. It was further directed that the Hon’ble High Court, Govt. of H.P. and the H.P. Public Service Commission shall jointly take up the exercise of preparation of select list immediately after the publication of the merit list and this exercise shall be completed within two weeks of the publication of the merit list every year.
Still further, it is directed that the select list should be published in the order of merit and should be double of the vacancies notified. This direction was subsequently modified by the Apex Court by the order dated 24th March, 2009 to the effect that the select list should contain the existing number of vacancies and the anticipated vacancies for the succeeding year and should include some candidates in the waiting list.
Unfortunately, the select list published by the Public Service Commission was only for the clear cut vacancies of five and three anticipated. No doubt, the said list is in the order of merit. As far as the facts of the instant cases are concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the select list on the aspect of communal rotation, so that we need not go into that aspect at this stage, we may refer the same for future guidelines later in this judgment.
5. It is informed that the select list happened to be limited to the clear cut vacancies and actual number of anticipated vacancies in view of the directions already issued by the Government in 2008-09. We find that the Government had issued such instructions in order to avoid unnecessarily (Sic unnecessary) litigation. But apparently, the Government has not taken note of directions issued by the Apex Court, which is already referred to above. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Public Service Commission to publish a revised select list of the candidates from the year 2010 merit list by including 2/3 of the actual and anticipated vacancies.
11. What is not clear though, is why in addition to clear and anticipated vacancies further vacancies i.e., 2/3rd of clear and anticipated vacancies were to be published. If that had to be a waiting list then such a direction could not have been given after the selections were over. In any case, there was no pressing urgency for picking new vacancies for the selection year 2013, after the selection was over and result had been announced.
12. Be that as it may, in the case at hand, consequent to the joint meeting and the decision taken therein the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) vide his letter dated 25.11.2013 wrote to the Secretary Public Service Commission as under: -