STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADVERTISEMENT no. 1/104/2010 was published for filling up of 106 posts of Instructor (Arts / Mathematics). Out of these posts, 23 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste category candidates. Petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein) applied for the post of Instructor (Arts / Mathematics) and participated in the selection process. His name did not figure in the select list of 23 posts. However, his name figured in the waiting list at sl. no. 2 under the Scheduled Caste category. Out of 23 candidates, only 19 candidates joined as Instructor under the Scheduled Caste category, and remaining posts were kept vacant. Offer was given to the selected candidates by way of notice dated 16.12.2012, published in Amar Ujala, to join the said posts of Instructor, but four candidates did not join. Consequently, four posts of Scheduled Caste category remained vacant. Petitioner's prayer for giving him appointment was declined, therefore, he filed writ petition no. 423 (S/S) of 2013. The same was disposed of by directing the respondent no. 2 to take action in accordance with law on the select list. The representation of the petitioner was rejected, against which writ petition no. 1979 (S/S) of 2013 was filed. The claim of the petitioner was that since four posts of Scheduled Caste category are vacant, he should have been offered appointment, as his name figured at sl. no. 2 of the waiting list.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit, respondent (appellant herein) came up with a case that appointment could have been given to the petitioner only upto the period of one year, as the waiting list survives for one year and does not survive beyond such period and, in the instant case, since one more year has elapsed, therefore, petitioner cannot be offered appointment.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge considered the contentions of the petitioner as well as the respondent. By referring the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of J and K and others vs Satpal, rendered in Civil Appeal no. 938 -939 of 2013, the learned Single Judge held that the period of limitation for one year for the waiting list stars from the date when entire select list has been filled up. Learned Single Judge observed that, in the present case, last offer was given to the selected candidate by way of notice dated 16.12.2012 and, therefore, the period of one year has not expired. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and issued mandamus to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner, as early as possible, but definitely within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.