Public Service ... vs Mamta Bisht And Ors on 3 June, 2010
The case of Mamta Bisht (supra), cited by the learned senior counsel for
the respondent nos. 2 to 7 is distinguishable on facts because in that case the High Court had
allowed the writ petition, amongst others, on the ground that as the last selected candidate,
receiving the benefit of horizontal reservation had secured more marks that the last selected
general category candidate, she ought to have been appointed against vacancy in general
category and the respondent no.1 ought to have been given the benefit of reservation,
however, the Supreme Court of India had interfered with the judgment by the High Court,
amongst others, on the ground that the because the respondent no.1 wanted her selection
against the reserved category candidate, the last selected candidate in that category, though
a necessary party, had not been impleaded. In the present case in hand, the petitioner has
impleaded the private respondents whose selection and appointment had been specifically
challenged. In the present case in hand, the advertisement envisaged filing up of 1064 vacant
posts of Sahayak in 17 Electrical Circles. As per the advertisement published in newspaper to
announce the result of selection, it contained roll nos. of 339 selected candidates in seven
circles under Guwahati Zone, as such, the Court does not find that it was necessary for the
petitioner to implead all the selected candidates, when he has assailed appointment of
Page No.# 8/12
specific persons, arrayed as respondent nos. 8 to 10. Accordingly, it is held that the present
writ petition is maintainable and is not hit by non- joinder of proper and necessary parties.