AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
Heard Mr. J.M. Thangkhiew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. N.G. Shylla, learned GA appearing for the State respondents and also Mr. B. Khyriem, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr. J.M. Thangkhiew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prays for time for taking instructions from the petitioners as to whether the present writ petition will be pursued or not. Keeping in view of his prayer, this Court has given anxious consideration to the relief sought for in the present writ petition. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the absorption of the petitioners as Inspector of Taxes.
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is on the basis of the fact of the case mentioned in the present writ petition. The concise fact sufficient for deciding the matter in issue in the present writ petition is briefly noted.
The Meghalaya Public Service Commission published an advertisement in the local daily i.e. The Shillong Times dated 5th October, 2007 inviting application for appointment to some posts of Inspector of Taxes in the Taxation Department.
In response to the said advertisement dated 5th October, 2007, the petitioners had applied for the post of Inspector of Taxes. Mr. J.M. Thangkhiew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to a copy of the said advertisement dated 5th October, 2007, contended that the number of the post of Inspector of Taxes advertised is not mentioned in the said advertisement. After the written examination and viva-voce test were conducted, the Meghalaya Public Service Commission declared the result of the test by publishing the list of the selected candidates vide Notification dated 28th September, 2010. Mr. J.M. Thangkhiew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further contended that out of the select list consisting of 65 candidates in order of merit notified in the said Notification dated 28th September, 2010, 42 selected candidates had already been appointed as Inspector of Taxes. However, copies of the orders for appointing the 42 selected candidates are not annexed in the present writ petition. As such, this Court is not in a position to know the date of the appointment orders of the said 42 selected candidates, nor the particulars of the 42 selected candidates said to have been appointed as Inspector of Taxes.
It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioners through an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, came to know that the numbers of vacancies in the post of Inspector of Taxes at the time of advertisement were 41 posts, and on 28th September, 2010, the Meghalaya Public Service Commission recommended 65 candidates.
It is also stated in the writ petition that the appointment of a large number of candidates in excess of the number of posts advertised would be illegal appointment without any sanction of law. However, the petitioners are not challenging the appointment of the candidates more than the advertised posts in the present writ petition. As stated above, the only prayer sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to the authority to consider absorption of the petitioners as Inspector of Taxes. The petitioners are seeking this prayer only on the basis that they are the selected candidates notified under the said Notification dated 28th September, 2010.
The parties are not denying that the list of the selected candidates is valid for only one year and for good reason the validity of the select list can be extended by another 6(six) months. The life span of the list of the selected candidates, in which the names of the petitioners appear therein, dated 28th September, 2010, had already expired before the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition inasmuch as the petitioners had filed the present writ petition only on 11-04-2014. The Apex Court in a catena of cases held that the relief cannot be granted to selected candidates who approach the Court by filing writ petition long after the expiry of the select list. Over and above, the candidate whose name mentioned in the select list has no right to claim for appointment. It is also clear that the authority concerned cannot arbitrarily pick up candidates from the selected candidates for appointment. After the expiry of the life of the select list, the selected candidates cannot claim for appointment on the basis of the expired list of the selected candidates.
Mr. J.M. Thangkhiew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further contended that the State Government cannot appoint the selected candidates more than the number of posts advertised. This point cannot be decided in the present writ petition inasmuch as the only prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents for absorption of the petitioners as Inspector of Taxes.
For the reasons given above, the prayer sought for in the present writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the present writ petition is not entertained. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudicing the right of the petitioners to challenge the appointment of the selected candidates more than the number of posts advertised in the said advertisement. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this judgment and order shall not stand in the way of deciding the writ petition, if any, filed by the writ petitioners challenging the appointment of the selected candidates more than the number of posts advertised.