Hasan Arif Jaidi v. State of Raj & Ors.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Pramendra Bohra, for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Choudhary, Dy.Govt. Counsel for the respondent-State. Mr.G.R.Punia, for the respondent No.3. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to fill up the posts of Lower Division Clerk which are lying vacant, from amongst the panel of selected candidates pursuant to Annexure-1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the 2 respondents stating therein that inclusion of the name of any person in the panel of selected candidates does not create any indefeasible vested right in his favour for appointment on the post. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the panel of selected candidates on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming appointment has already expired and thereafter, year wise vacancies were determined, and the vacancies were advertised and filled up even upto the year 2008 and therefore, no question of filling the post after the vacancies advertised vide Annexure-1 arises.

The vacancies advertised by Annexure-1 was of the year 2003. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents came with a case that there were certain persons who worked on deputation and the persons on deputation cannot be said to have created a vacancy to be filled up by direct recruitment, therefore, the actual vacancies accrued have already been filled from the merit list of the selected candidates and as against the candidates who were on deputation, there were no posts. Therefore, if there is direction to fill the remaining vacancies, it is only on account of the deputation of some of the employees. Be that as it may, since in the subsequent years, the vacancies were determined and filled up category-wise 3 i.e. OBC, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, therefore, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief prayed for. In the case of Sushma Suri Vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Another, and number of other parties, 1999(1) SCC 330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “it is however not possible to give any relief to the appellant because when she commenced this litigation, recruitment process was still going on but now the process is complete, selected candidates have already been appointed, they have reported for duty at different places and they are also not impleaded as parties in these proceedings.

It would not therefore be proper to upset such appointments. All that can now be done is to direct the authorities concerned including the High Court and Government to process application for recruitment of candidates in future in the light of the position explained above. If there is any pending recruitment, view taken in this case shall also be applied to such recruitment. ” Keeping in view the decision, noticed above, and pleadings of the parties, I find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. NK (H.R.PANWAR), J.