H V LAKUM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the inaction of the respondent in not making appointment from the select list pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.4.1989, Annexure 'C'.RS 2

(2.) The petitioner has come out with a case that in response to the advertisement published in Jansatta local daily newspaper published from Ahmedabad on 16.4.1979, applications were invited for Gram Sevaks and Talati-cum-Mantri. It is the case of the petitioner he submitted application for appointment in Surendranagar District. So far as Surendranagar is concerned, from the advertisement it appears that in all 91 vacancies were there. 57 vacancies were unreserved and the rest were for reserved categories under different heads.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner was empanelled, and, therefore, he has right to get appointment. He has further contended that whenever there is a vacancy, the respondents are dutybound to appoint the petitioner on the post which may have fallen vacant. Anyhow, it is true that the advertisement was given as indicated hereinabove. It is also clear that the advertisement was in all for filling up 91 posts. After the posts are filled in, the select list cannot be made operative. What the petitioner contends is that the authorities have continued to operate the select list for a pretty long period, they cannot all of a sudden stop the operation of the select list. This argument made by the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of a catena decisions of the Apex Court.