P.E.JAFER Vs. ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. We have gone through the order of Tribunal and also the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported in 1994 KHC 987 in the case of Gujarat State Dy.Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat and others.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that by virtue of the earlier order of Tribunal the petitioners got included in the rank list at Ext.P2 a list prepared for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector(Wireless Operator) and Assistant Sub Inspector (Radio Technician). According to the petitioners, though there was a notification for filling up of 16 posts, based on merit- cum-seniority list, 5 vacancies arose during the selection year on account of retirement of certain officers in the post of Assistant Sub Inspectors. Therefore, the petitioners who were included in the rank list as Sl.Nos.17 to 20 respectively at Ext.P2 were also entitled for selection during the said year as the vacancies arose in the very same year in which notification was made. They also challenge the decision of the respondent authority in conducting another examination for the 5 vacancies that fall vacant on account of retirement of Assistant Sub Inspectors.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that 16 vacancies were notified for the rank list at Ext.P2 and it was the subject matter of earlier round of litigation before this Court. Apparently, Ext.P1 is not the notification notifying the vacancies and calling for applications to appear for the examination. Ext.P1 is a wireless message sent to all police stations concerned. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any rule or procedure like Circular issued by the respondent authority indicating that the rank list will be alive and whatever vacancies arise in the said selection year have to be taken from the said rank list, we are at loss to understand the stand of the petitioners.