Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5) Shri Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for petitioner-Dr.Sangeeta Khyalia has argued that R.P.S.C. originally fixed 12/2/2010 as the date of examination. This date was preponed to 12/12/2010 for malafide reasons. If the date can be preponed for one reason, it can be postponed for another. Their examination should have been held on the originally declared date or at a later date. But preponement of the examination has had very adverse consequences in that the petitioner will miss the selection merely by few weeks. Moreover, contention of the learned counsel is that R.P.S.C. had originally invited only 546 vacancies, which were then increased to 644, 848 and 1248 by issuance of corrigendum thus, practically leaving no vacancy for the petitioner. Petitioner in this manner would suffer a loss in that, she would be for considerable time period, deprived of right to compete against vacancies, which had arisen subsequent to issuance of the original notification dated 18/9/2009. Learned counsel in order to bring home his point referred to the calender of examination issued by the R.P.S.C. itself at Ann.9 in SBCWP No.400/2011 and argued that no further examination/selection for the post of Medical Officer is scheduled to take place during entire academic session 2010-11. Action of the R.P.S.C. in fixing 12/1/2011 to 14/2/2011 dates of interview must be held illegal, unconstitutional and writ petition therefore be allowed in terms prayed for.

9) Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that R.P.S.C. is already over burdened with the task of selecting suitable candidates to the various services and at the same time, participating in various proceedings of D.P.C. of the State Government held from time to time. It is according to its convenience that the dates of the examinations and interviews are fixed. This is a general decision applicable to all concerned. The allegation of malafide in fixing of dates is therefore strongly refuted. It is denied that date of written examination was changed or number of vacancies were increased for reason of malafide. Learned counsel also denied the assertion that by the subject selection of the medical officers against increased vacancies, all the vacancies would be filled and there would remain no further vacancies for years together. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that R.P.S.C. has recently received another requisition from the State Government for filling up 73 more posts of medical officers, which are in addition to the posts that are being filled in by selection process in question. It has been denied that this is a case of legitimate expectation. Writ petitions therefore be dismissed.