ABDUL WASIM Vs. COLLECTOR BADAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A select list containing '13' names was published after the same was approved by the Collector, Badaun on 15th January, 1993 along with the waiting list containing five names. The petitioners' names figure at Serial No. '4' and '5' of the waiting list, wherein the petitioner No. 2 was shown as backward class candidate. The said 13 persons were given appointment on 22.1.1993 against the vacancies which existed on the date selection process had started. Admittedly, in the next one year namely till the end of December, 1993 five persons were due to retire on superannuation. But after the persons at Serial y Nos. 1 to 3 in the waiting list were given appointment during the currency of the said list which is admittedly valid for one year, the same was sought to be cancelled by the Collector, by order dated 23rd July, 1993 which is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition by the petitioner.

(2.) SRI Ashok Khare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends, while translating the Annexure 4 to the writ petition, that even cancelling the candidature of the petitioners in the impugned order it was pointed out that the vacant posts as on 30th June, 1994 were to be filled up by fresh recruitment which should be completed within 15.9.1993. He also contends that even before the said order dated 23.7.1993, the Collector, Badaun had held fresh selection in April, 1993 and had selected two persons named in Para '15' and had given them appointment on 24.4.1993 which is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. On this background SRI Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his argument on two-fold grounds, as indicated hereinafter.

(3.) SRI R. K. Saxena, learned standing counsel on the other hand vehementally opposes SRI Khare's contentions. According to him in view of sub-rule (8) of Rule 23. the list may contain the names exceeding 25% of the vacancies and not beyond that. There having been 13 vacancies the list could contain only 16 names adding 25% in excess. Therefore, the name of the petitioners were rightly excluded since the inclusion of their names was contrary to the rules and, as such, was void ah initio and has to be ignored.