Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. In A.V. Bhogeshwarudu v. A.P. Public Service Commission, J.T. (1989) 4 Sc 130, the process of selection had started in 1983 and was completed in 1987. The vacancies that arose in between were also sought to be accommodated from the recruitment list prepared by the State Public Service Commission. The point which arose for consideration was if out of the names recommended for appointments some candidates did not join, whether the vacancies remaining unfilled can be filled from out of the remaining successful candidates. ' This Court held that there was no justification in insisting that instead of filling up the vacancies by recommended candidates a fresh selection list should be made. This decision is, therefore, not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. So also, the cases of Neelima Shanqla v. State of Haryana and Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are of no help as the point involved in those cases was altogether different.

17. Thus from the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court it is now clear that for initiating a process of selection it is necessary for the appointing authority or competent authority to determine the existing vacancies as welt as the anticipated vacancies likely to occur within the selection year or within the period provided under the relevant Rules of Recruitment of a particular service. After determination of such vacancies, the advertisement is to be made and the selection process is to be initiated only in respect of those vacancies which were advertised for the purpose of selection. Thereafter by completing the process of selection a select list is to be prepared by including the candidates to the extent of equal number of vacancies notified and available for the process of selection and advertised for the said purpose. At the most some additional vacancies notified by the government to the Commission during the process of selection and/or before it is completed, could be included in the said process but it must" be indicated in the advertisement of vacancies that same may be increased in said process of selection by adding the vacancies if available during the course of selection. If Rules of Recruitment provides to include large number of candidates in the select list than the number of vacancies to be filled in for which requisition is made, it shall be open for the selection body to include such large number of candidates in the select list. If no such provision has been made in the Recruitment Rules or Government orders holding the field on subject matter, the select list is to be prepared and confined only to the extent of number of vacancies notified and advertised for such selection. But for the purpose of meeting out emergent situation arising on account of non joining of candidates of the select list the persons placed below in merit of the aforesaid select list though otherwise found fit for selection and appointment, their names may be placed in the waiting list.

23. Now applying the aforesaid principles on facts of the instant case it is clear that undisputably, advertisement was published in the year 1996 initially for filling up 11 vacancies for the post of Assistant Registrar under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities (Centralised) Service Rules. 1975 which were increased from 11 to 19 during the process of selection. On completion of process of selection a select list containing names of 19 candidates was prepared by the Commission after holding the written examination and the interview. According to the averments made in paragraphs. 4 and 11 of counter affidavit filed on behalf of Commission, the names of all 19 candidates for filling up 19 vacant posts of Assistant Registrar were sent to the State Government vide letter No. 101/2/Misc/E-l/94-95 dated "20 November, 1997. It appears that thereafter letters of appointment were issued by the Government to selected candidates to join the posts in pursuance of the said selection and recommendation made by the Commission. Subsequently thereafter, two candidates namely Sri Kamlesh Kumar Shukla and Sri Anand Kumar belonging to general category, resigned from service on 5.9.1998 and 2.12.1998 respectively that is, within one year of their joining on their posts. The State Government did not ask from Commission for recommending any name from waiting list for appointment on the said vacant posts for quite long time. Ultimately it appears that on various representations made by the petitioner the Government had sent a letter dated 28.7.2001 to the Commission asking to send 3 names from the waiting list for filling up three vacancies out of which one was caused due to non-joining of a scheduled caste candidate and remaining two vacancies were caused due to resignation of two candidates belonging to general category. On receipt of the aforesaid letter of the State Government, Commission sent reply to the State Government that since the period of about four years had elapsed, and one year life time of the waiting list too had expired, the requisition of the government is barred by time consequently, no name could be recommended for appointment on the said vacancies from the waiting list. The communication further states that since two vacancies arose due to resignation of 2 general category candidates who even if resigned within one year after their joining the posts, even then in view of para 3 of government order dated 23.12.1997, such vacancies cannot be filled up from i wait listed candidates even if the prescribed period of waiting list still remains to be expired and waiting list survives or operating. Being a general category candidate, the petitioner has claimed his appointment against one vacancy caused due to resignation of general category candidates as aforesaid and aggrieved with the action of the Commission, he filed the instant writ petition.