Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.6 On these grounds, the learned counsel Sh. Luthra would strongly urge the justifiability of the claims being pressed by the applicant in the OA.

5. The claims in the OA have been contested by the respondents. By way of substantive grounds it has been stated that the applicant had no claim whatsoever since he had failed to make the grade in the list of the finally selected candidates in the 2007 recruitment. Besides, violation of no statutory rule in issuance of the subsequent advertisement of 2009 or in the selection process in pursuance thereof has also been averred.

12. The vacancies in this case had been carried forward to the next recruitment cycle. As per the decision of the Apex Court in State of UP & Anr vs. Nidhi Khanna & Anr (supra) relied upon by the respondents, the claims on the basis of even empanelled candidates in an earlier select list are precluded to be agitated in such a situation.

13. In view of the foregoing, we find that the claims in the OA are not tenable. The applicant who is not a selectee, nor even a panelist has no locus standi. Besides, the selection process has been closed. The averment of arbitrariness is not found to be tenable. The applicant himself is a beneficiary of the subsequent selection process to which the unfilled vacancies had been carried forward. Considering the factual matrix of the case and the settled law on the subject, we do not find any merit in the OA which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.