Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: vacancy increase in Hanuman Prasad Vyas And Anr vs State Of Raj. And Ors on 23 July, 2019Matching Fragments
20. Now, there can be no two opinions about the position in law: when the state or a public agency advertises posts for recruitment, it cannot resort to appointments in excess of such number (of vacancies) and is bound by it. The exception to these are where the rules permit excess appointments, through the same recruitment process, and furthermore that there is some indication in the advertisement that the vacancies could increase. Both these objective factors are present: the advertisement clearly stated that the number of posts (for recruitment) could be increased by the state. Likewise, the rules permitted appointments to the extent of 50% in excess of what was advertised. Therefore, appointment of that number would mean that as against 167 vacancies, 250 candidates could have been (15 of 16) [SAW-87/2015] validly appointed. However, the number exceeded by 52: the state appointed 302 candidates.
Similar views were expressed in Mukul Saikia v. State of Assam (2009) 1 SCC 386; State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma (2002) 1 SCC 113 and Raj Rishi Mehra and others Vs. State of Punjab 2013 (12) SCC 243.
22. This Court, however notices that the select list was operated long back (2011); appointments were made then; the vacancies which are said to be excess were apparently not included in the original advertisement, because all the agencies failed to calculate their existing vacancies and the advertisement stated that the number of vacancies could increase. Crucially, the reasons for the appointment of these excess candidates was disclosed to the court in early February. The petitioner/appellants, (16 of 16) [SAW-87/2015] who were not candidates (as they were either diploma holders or degree holders who did not possess 60% in degree qualifications or 55% in AMIE qualification) took no steps to challenge the decision of the state to resort to excess recruitments, and implead the appointed candidates (either all of them or some of them, in a representative capacity). In these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that at this stage, it would not be in the larger interests of justice to interfere with the recruitment process and upset the appointments of such candidates.