Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 48 (CHH)

SANTOSH KUMAR v. STATE OF C. G.

2013-02-04

Prashant Kumar Mishra

body2013
ORDER 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order Annexure P-1 whereby the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission has informed the Labour Department of Government of Chhattisgarh that the petitioner's case for appointment on the post of Assistant Director, Industrial Health and Safety on the strength of inclusion of his name in the waiting list cannot be allowed as it would amount to filling up of posts over and above the advertised number of posts. Petitioner has also sought quashment of the consequent Letter of Requisition (Annexure P-2) sent by the Labour Department Government of Chhattisgarh to the Public Service Commission for filling up 10 posts of Assistant Director, Industrial Health and Safety. 2. In the year 2008, the Public Service Commission initiated process of recruitment for filling up 4 posts of Assistant Director, Industrial Health and Safety by issuing advertisement dated 27th March, 2008. The selection process was completed and the select list was published for all the 4 posts on 21.12.2010. The petitioner was placed at Serial No.4 in the merit list, however, since only two posts were to be filled up in unreserved category and he was placed at Serial No.3 amongst the unreserved candidates, he could not be appointed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 10 number of posts for which the letter of requisition has been sent by the department to the Public Service Commission fell vacant in October and March 2011 i.e., during the period when the waiting list was alive, the respondent department is under legal obligation to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director, Industrial Health and Safety and fresh recruitment cannot be held. 4. It is settled law that the appointing authority is not empowered to fill up any additional posts than the number of posts which were advertised for recruitment. In Rikhi Ray and others Vs. High Court of Delhi and others (2010) 2 SCC 637 , it has been held that the appointment made beyond number of vacancies advertised is without jurisdiction being violative of Articles 14 and 16(1). In Rikhi Ray and others Vs. High Court of Delhi and others (2010) 2 SCC 637 , it has been held that the appointment made beyond number of vacancies advertised is without jurisdiction being violative of Articles 14 and 16(1). It has further been held therein that the process of selection comes to an end with filling up of notified vacancies and that waiting list cannot be used as a reservoir to fill up vacancies which come into existence after issuance of advertisement. It is also held therein that the unexhausted select list/waiting list becomes meaningless and cannot be pressed into service any more. Similar is the law laid down in the matter of Arup Das and others Vs. State of Assam and others (2012) 5 SCC 559 . 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no substance in the writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition Dismissed.