Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The brief facts having material bearing to the controversy involved in the case are that on 5.8.1996 an advertisement no.A-l/E-1 96-97 was published by the Commission in daily newspapers for holding selection against 11 vacancies on the post of Assistant Registrar in U.P. State Universities (Centralised) Services. Out of the aforesaid 11 vacancies, 6 vacancies were earmarked as unreserved for candidates of general category, 3 vacancies were reserved for other backward class candidates and 2 vacancies were reserved for the candidates belonging to S.C. & S.T. Subsequently thereafter aforesaid vacancies were increased from 11 to 19. The petitioner being fully eligible and qualified, applied for the selection and pursuance thereof, he was permitted to appear in written examination. The petitioner was declared successful in written examination and was called for interview which was held on 29.9.1997. After the interview, the result of aforesaid selection was declared on 30.9.1997 in which total 19 candidates were declared successful. The name of the petitioner did not find place in the main select list. But he was placed at serial no.2 in the waiting list of the candidates belonging to the general category. The names of selected candidates were commended and forwarded by the Commission to the State Government for appointment and the letters of appointment have been issued to the selected candidates by the State Government on 30.12.1997. The petitioner came to know that 2 candidates of general category, namely Kamlesh Kumar Shukla and Anand Kumar had resigned from service within one year of their selection and appointment on 5.9.1998 and 2.12.1998 respectively as a result of which 2 vacancies on the said post have occurred. Since the aforesaid vacancies arose out of resignations of candidates belonging to the general category, the petitioner, being a general category candidate at serial no.2 in the waiting list, was entitled to be recommended by the Commission and the State Government was under legal obligation to ask the Commission to send the name of the petitioner for appointment and further to issue letter of appointment to the petitioner on the basis of his placement at serial no.2 in the waiting list amongst the candidates belonging to the general category. The petitioner moved several representations to the authorities concerned for his appointment against one of the aforesaid two vacancies. It is also alleged that the person placed at serial no.1 of the waiting list of general category, namely Sri Rajiv Kumar did not make any effort for appointment on the aforesaid post. In fact it appears that he is not interested in appointment against the said vacancies. It appears that in pursuance of such representations made by the" petitioner, the Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh wrote a letter to the Commission on 26.7.2001 to send the names from the aforesaid wait listed candidates which in turn was replied by the Secretary of the Commission vide his letter dated 20.8.2001 contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition whereby the request made by the government has been turned down by the Commission on the grounds stated herein above, hence this petition.

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.

22. Another decision upon which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in support of the case of the petitioner is a decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Ravindra Nath Rai and Ors. case (supra) is also distinguishable on facts wherein there was no such Waiting list prepared by the Police Headquarters in the recruitment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police. A select list/merit list of eligible and qualified candidates was prepared and the vacancies were increased after selection. From the aforesaid merit list certain more candidates were picked up to fill up those increased posts and they were also sent for training. No life of said merit list was prescribed. In such peculiar facts and circumstances of the case aforesaid decision was rendered by this court. Thus the principles laid down therein has no application to the facts of instant case particularly in view of law enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court referred herein before which could not be brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this court and also on account of subsequent pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court on the question in issue referred herein before, therefore, the same can be of no assistance to the case of the petitioner.