Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is not the stand of the State that all the vacancies in pursuance to the recruitment process initiated in terms of issuance of advertisement dated 2.4.2000 had been filled up. In that eventuality, in case a selected candidate after joining resigns or dies the vacancy so occurring would be liable to be filled up in pursuance to a subsequent selection process. However, the facts of the present case are otherwise. The State Govt. not only advertised 60 posts of E.T.T Teachers pertaining to Mansa district against the S.C category but also took a conscious decision to fill up all 60 posts in pursuance to a recruitment process in which the present petitioners had participated. Admittedly, two candidates namely Pavittar Singh and Baljit Singh had been issued appointment letters but they had not joined. As such there was no impediment in law in offering such posts to the candidates next in order of merit i.e. the present petitioners. Even a perusal of the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure P-9) would also reveal that there has been a complete non-application of mind at the hands of the appropriate authority. Even though, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.9.2007 passed in CWP No. 14204 of 2007 had required the respondent-authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment against the two vacant posts of E.T.T Teachers reserved for S.C candidates, yet, the impugned order is totally silent on such aspect. It is the fourth round of litigation that has been thrust upon the petitioners. Such action at the hands of the State smacks of arbitrariness and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.