AJEET KUMAR Vs. DY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus commanding the Deputy Labour Commissioner-respondent No. 1, from holding any fresh interview and further mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to implement the waiting list and not supersede the petitioners by appointing candidates pursuant to the fresh interview for the post of Peons and Chowkidars.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the office of the Deputy Labour Commis sioner, Allahabad issued advertisement for the post of Peons/chowkidars in the office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad. Inter alia the advertisement was published in daily 'aaj' on 28-1-1988. THE petitioners submitted their applications and were called for interview. It is said that 10 candidates out of 450 were selected and appointed with immediate effect and a list of 20 candidates as waiting list was prepared. According to counter-affidavit from the respondents only 8 vacancies existed but on the date of interview another vacancy existed hence only 9 candidates were selected against the existing vacancies arid not 10 candidates. A list of 24 candidates was prepared on the waiting list and not 20 candidates. Sri Rama Shanker and Durga Dutt from the waiting list were given appoint ment on 23-10-1989 and 26-10- 1989. THE petitioners were not given any chance of appointment from the waiting list. THE respondent No. 2 on 17-6-1992 called for fresh interview for the post of Peons/chowkidars. This subsequent interview is said to be illegal because the earlier waiting list has not exhausted and since only two persons from the waiting list were given appointment, the petitioners could not be excluded. It is also averred that the respondents are bound by the rule of promissory estoppel to appoint the petitioners. THE fresh interview scheduled and held on 17-6-1992 is said to be mala fide. With these allegations the instant writ petition was filed supported by affidavit.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has been that the waiting list once prepared will not exhaust till all the candi dates of the waiting list are given appointment. From the side of the State, the learned standing counsel contended that since the waiting list remains in force only for a period of one year from the date of its preparation it automatically exhausted. In order to appreciate this contention, relevant rules have to be kept in mind.