LAWS(KAR)-2018-9-379

AKHEEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Decided On September 20, 2018
Akheel Appellant
V/S
Union of India And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had applied for the post of Machinist. The petitioner had in fact appeared for the examination and has attended the written examination held on 28.06.2012. Respondent No.2 had called upon the petitioner to submit necessary documents to consider his employment. The petitioner states that out of three posts that were available for employment as Machinist one post was reserved for OBC Category, while the rest were kept open for General Category. Subsequently the results were declared in the month of November, 2013 and three persons namely Rushikesh Jagdale, Girap Satyawan and Ramesh Dandge were selected for the post and appointed on 24.04.2018.

(2.) The petitioner states that subsequently he has obtained information under Right to Information Act, which indicates that the petitioner was in the waiting list. Copy of the said notification dated 24.03.2015 containing the aforesaid particulars has been produced. Subsequently, the petitioner followed up with the respondents and by addressing communications, has obtained a reply to the effect that his candidature could not be considered for appointment to the post of Machinist, as the panel list that was prepared was valid for one year.

(3.) Petitioner contends that, as per the office memorandum dated 13.06.2000 which has been produced by way of a memo, there is an advisory that, wherever possible in case of vacancies that may arise due to non-joining of the candidate within the stipulated time allowed for joining the post, if a fresh panel is not available, such vacancy should not be treated as fresh vacancy and recruitment must be made from the reserve panels. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is from amongst the selected list, candidates were selected in the selection process in which the petitioner took part. Sri.Dange Sanjay Ramesh though selected did not join and the petitioner would contend that in view of the office memorandum his name ought to have been considered as regards the recruitment to the said post itself and the petitioner be appointed to the vacant post by selecting him from the panel earlier prepared.