Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: vacancy increase in Smt. Vijaya Dayal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service ... on 12 September, 2005Matching Fragments
( 12.9.2005)
1. The present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugns the advertisement dated 15.2.2005 (Annexure P/3) whereby number of vacancies of the Civil Judge Class-II has been increased from 30 to 61, as being illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional.
2. The undisputed relevant facts, in brief, are that the petitioner made an application for appointment to the post of Civil Judge Class-II pursuant to the advertisement No. 02/ 2004/ Examination dated 19.8.2004 (Annexure P/1). In the said advertisement, notified vacancy of Civil Judge Class-II was 30. The said advertisement further provided that the number of vacancies would be subject to variation. On the basis of the requisition sent by the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, number of vacancies of Civil Judge Class-II was increased to 61, keeping in view the availability of the vacancies up to December, 2005, as informed by the Registrar General of the High Court vide Memorandum No. 510/Confdl./2004/II-3- 7/2002, Bilaspur, dated 28th December, 2004 to the effect that "there will be further requirement of 31 or more Civil Judges Class-II by the end of next year" i.e. 2005. Accordingly special notice was published on 15th February, 2005, which is impugned in this petition, informing that the posts of Civil Judges Class-II would be 61 in place of 30. The Respondent No.2 on the basis of the requirement of Civil Judges, Class-II proceeded with the selection process. The written examination for selection of the candidates for interview and thereafter for appointment to the post of Civil Judge Class-II took place on 15.2.2005 and the result of the said examination was declared on 19.2.2005. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 are to initiate interview process from 12.9.2005. The petitioner finding herself unsuccessful in the result declared on 19.2.2005, has filed the instant petition on 4.8.2005 praying that the respondents be directed to cancel the advertisement dated 15.2.2005 relating to 31 posts of Civil Judge Class-II which was increased later on.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri T. K. Tiwari submitted that there should have been separate examination for enhanced 31 vacancies to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner and as such the same was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that the respondents No. 1 and 2 have no authority to increase number of vacancies of Civil Judge Class-II from 30 to 61, once it has been advertised that the number of vacancies would be 30.
8. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 2 further submitted that there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as alleged by the petitioner, as there is no discrimination and arbitrariness, and the corrigendum was issued at the earliest possible i.e. 15.2.2005, on the basis of the variation clause mentioned in the original advertisement dated 19.8.2004, which was applicable to all the candidates who had applied for the examination. The petitioner as well as other candidates have more chances of success in view of the increase in number of vacancies from 30 to 61. Learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition with costs.
11. In the present case when the advertisement was issued for selection of Civil Judge Class-II it was found that by the end of the year 2005 the total requirement of Civil Judge-II would be 61, as such in the recruitment process which was on, number of vacancies was increased from 30 to 61.
12. The case of Roshni Devi & others Vs. State of Haryana & others, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 3268 , cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.