KAUSHAL CHANDRAKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application for selection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I. After the selection, a list of selected candidates was published on 30-5-2008. Thereafter, one more list was published on 2-6-2008 (Annexure P-2) wherein the name of the petitioner was at S. No. 15. The candidate just above the petitioner, i.e., Shivendra Chandrakar was called for counselling against the reserved quota of Other Backward Class (for short "OBC"). He did not appear in the counselling, thus, the petitioner ought to have been considered for counselling and appointment. In spite of the fact that one seat remained vacant against the reserved quota of OBC, the respondent authorities have not taken any steps to appoint the petitioner against the said seat before expiry of the validity period of the waiting list, i.e., 30-6-2009. Shri Tripathi further submits that the petitioner was given oral assurance that he would be appointed. Thus, the present petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him against the available vacancy in OBC category.

(2.) On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submit that after taking the vacancy of the previous year as vacancy for the next year, subsequent advertisement has been published for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I (Zoology), though no date has been specified by the respondents.

(3.) There is no dispute that the fresh recruitment process for the next year has already been initiated. Thus, the vacancy, which according to the petitioner was available before June, 2009 must have been treated as vacancy for the next selection process.