PURAN SINGH BISHT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY Condonation Application No. 11133 of 2010 Learned counsel for the State is not objecting the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, we allow the said application. Special Appeal No. 240 of 2010 Admit. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

(2.) IN July, 2008, an advertisement was published indicating therein the number of vacancies available. The purpose of the advertisement was to invite applications for filling up those vacancies. Appellants responded to the advertisement. Being eligible, they were asked to participate in the selection process. After selection process was completed, it transpired that appellants do not have such merit that they can supply the vacancies advertised.

(3.) THE other contention was that it was decided by the Officers of the Department, including the Chief Conservator of Forest, that the vacancies that would crop up would be supplied by seasonal workers. Those decisions, being contrary to the Rules made by the State Government, are of no effect. Accordingly, the said contention too has been rejected.