Anil Kumar vs The State of Haryana and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The petitioner complains of the method of shortlisting but was himself a beneficiary of the process and was interviewed. Therefore, it would not lie in his mouth to challenge the shortlisting method. The next issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that appointments have been made beyond advertised vacancies. I asked Mr. Malik whether in case where appointments were made beyond advertised vacancies would his client come within the merit beyond the advertised vacancies and till the point where the appointments were made. He was unable to answer. Besides, the selection involves 966 people. They are not before the Court as parties. No appointment orders have been placed on the file of this case nor are impugned. In the first advertisement, 400 posts were advertised. By a corrigendum, the posts were increased to 870. In the first advertisement, there was a condition that the advertised posts were liable to variation. Given that the advertisement was issued in 2008 and the selection process continued and was completed in May 2012 there may be many vacancies which would have arisen in the meanwhile which have been filled by the same selection process.

In these circumstances, I do not find this case merits interference. Dismissed.