Rajni Sharma & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others

L. Narayana Swamy, CJ

Recruitment notification dated 12.01.2009 was issued for filling up of 104 posts of Lady Constables in the respondent Department. In response to the said notification, the petitioners-appellants submitted their applications and claimed their cases to be considered in the respective quota. The petitioners-appellants, as it is submitted, belong to Scheduled Castes and General category. It is further submitted that after the selection process, the respondents selected only 79 candidates and the petitioners-appellants who were otherwise eligible to be recruited were not offered appointment and kept in waiting list. It is submitted that the waiting list should have survived for one year but instead of offering appointment against the vacant posts to the petitioners-appellants, the respondents issued a fresh Advertisement to fill up the posts by way of subsequent selection process. Thus, the action of the respondents in issuing the fresh advertisement is stated to be arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The writ petition has been dismissed, against which the present appeal has been filed.

The grounds taken by the appellants is that when the petitioners-appellants are kept in the waiting list, the respondents should have given preference to the waiting list, but they have issued a fresh notification to fill up the remaining posts which is contrary to the recruitment rules. Hence, the impugned action of the respondents in issuing fresh advertisement needs to be set aside (but there is no such prayer in the writ petition rather the prayer of the petitioners-appellants is for direction to the respondents to offer appointment to them by operating the waiting list).

The respondent-State has filed the reply to the writ petition, wherein it has been submitted that the petitioners-appellants have concealed the material facts. It is true that they were put in the waiting list and the same was operating for one year but the petitioners-appellants could not have been taken from the waiting list for the purpose of appointment as the posts which were subsequently notified by the respondents do not pertain to the categories to which the petitioners-appellants belong. The total posts which remained unfilled, were advertised by the respondents by issuing fresh notification and the said posts were belonging to different categories for which the appellants-petitioners were not eligible either for selection or appointment. Hence, they cannot claim their right for selection to the said posts.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

It appears that out of 104 posts, only 79 posts were filled up and the petitioners-appellants were placed in the waiting list. The case of the petitioners-appellants is that instead of issuing fresh notification, the respondents should have operated the waiting list by issuing necessary appointment orders to them, for which they were not considered. The posts subsequently advertised by the respondents were belonging to the category to which the petitioners-appellants does not belong.

The question of waiting list comes only when the post of respective or corresponding category in the main list fell vacant on account of non-joining of the selected candidates. Here is the case where from the main list the candidates, who have been selected, have reported and consequentially the question of operating the waiting list does not arise in respect of the category of which the petitioners-appellants belong.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.