Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Senior Counsel: Reiterating the above submissions, learned Senior counsel submitted that the eligibility criteria for selection of Technical Assistant – Group C has not been changed at all; but only the breakup of vacancies category-wise has been reworked and the High Court was not right in setting aside the selection of the appellants. It was submitted that the successful candidates have been working for more than three years and their selection and appointment are based on merit in different categories and the entire selection cannot be set aside upsetting the entire process.

Contention of the private respondents

14. Mr. Alok Mishra, learned counsel: Learned counsel submitted that changing the number of vacancies category-wise is in violation of the statutory provisions and Rule 15(3) of the Agriculture Service Rules, 1993 and also the constitutional mandate was infringed and by revising the number of posts in the various categories, substantial number of candidates were illegally deprived of the opportunities to appear in the interview. It was contended that Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 changing the number of vacancies category-wise suffers from vice of arbitrariness and the High Court rightly held that the rules of the game were changed during the process of selection and the High Court rightly set aside the selection of the appellants directing holding of interview afresh based on the quantifiable date collected and taking into account the cadre strength and the actual working strength. Learned counsel further submitted that since the rules were violated and the constitutional mandate was infringed, as held in Union of India and others v. O. Chakradhar (2002) 3 SCC 146, individual notices were not required to be sent to the selected candidates and non-issuance of notice to individual selected candidates will not affect the correctness of the impugned judgment.

15. Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned counsel: Learned counsel submitted that challenging the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 issued by the UP Public Service Commission and also the selection process and the final selection list, number of writ petitions were filed and the appellants have challenged the judgment in the lead case in WP (C) No.34196 of 2015 and in the other writ petitions viz. WP(C) No.38399/2015, WP(C)No.45822/2015, WP(C) No.47894/2015, WP(C) No.50878/2015 and SPLAD No.283/2016 and the appellants have not chosen to challenge the judgment passed in number of other writ petitions remaining unchallenged and operate as res judicata. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple and Another v. Meenakashi Ammal and Others (2015) 3 SCC 624. Insofar as horizontal reservation, the learned counsel further submitted that wherever the candidates for horizontal reservation were not available, they were filled up with the candidates with the vertical reservation which is not in accordance with law and the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel submitted that considering number of irregularities in the selection process, the High Court rightly set aside the selection process subsequent to the stage of declaration of written examination and the impugned judgment warrants no interference.

16. Mr. Anil Nauriya, learned counsel submitted that the terms and conditions for the selection were set out in the advertisement and the rights of the candidates for selection to be considered in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of the advertisement and not by the subsequent events. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon N.T. Devin Katti and others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others (1990) 3 SCC 157. The learned counsel further submitted that by the adjustment of diploma holders against the “general quota”, the State erred in revising the requisition of the vacancies in different categories which prejudicially affect the interest of the candidates who appeared in the examination and passed in the written examination and the High Court rightly set aside the selection process subsequent to the stage of declaration of the written examination. Reliance was placed upon Government of India through Secretary and another v. Ravi Prakash Gupta and another (2010) 7 SCC 626.