(1.) On January 1, 1988 the respondent No. 1 published an advertisement in newspaper inviting applications for the post of Assistant Grade - 2 (Cashier). In the advertisement it was specifically provided that there were four vacancies. The writ petitioners applied for the said post and they were successful in getting themselves enlisted provisionally for employment. The authority prepared a list of 60 candidates. The position of the writ petitioners were as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_266_CALLT3_2006Html1.htm</FRM>
(2.) Generally, the provisional list is prepared by taking successful candidates in order of merit one and half times of the available vacancies. According to the respondents, in course of selection process there had been sixteen more vacancies available and as such they gave employment to twenty candidates in order of merit. The last of such candidates being serial No. 20 was given employment on August 1, 1991 after receipt of the police verification report. However, the respondent selected twentieth candidate for appointment on March 27/April 1, 1991. The selection process was concluded on July 4, 1989 when the panel was prepared by the Additional Chief Account Officer after completion of all the formalities. The panel was kept alive for one year as per the rules. However, the life of the panel was extended for further a period of one year by two extension of six months each. The petitioners could not be accommodated as according to the respondents there was no vacancy available for them within the period when the panel was kept alive. The corporation by a memo dated December 24, 1992, informed all concerned that since the pamel was valid for one year and it was extended for another year no further extension was possible in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of Prem Prakash v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1948 SC 1931. The corporation also observed in the said memorandum that the panel would be valid till all the existing vacancies advertised or existing at the time of advertisement were filled up and it should consist such number of candidates as would be sufficient to fill up the notified/existing vacancies. The said memorandum was challenged by the writ petitioners by filing a writ petition being C.O. No. 20636(W) of 1995. During the pendency of the said writ petition on October 31, 2002 the respondent published an advertisement in a newspaper for filing up the post of Assistant Grade - 2 (Cashier). The writ petition came up for hearing before Girish Chandra when His Lordship disposed of the said writ petition by an order dated February 17, 2004 by granting liberty to the writ petitioners to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file afresh on the self same cause of action as in between the subsequent development had taken place. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that once the vacancy was notified as four there was no occasion for the respondent corporation to prepare a list of sixty candidates and give appointments upto twentieth candidate for the said post. This gave a legitimate expectation to the writ petitioners especially the petitioner 3 and 5 who were placed in the panel as serial Nos. 25 and 21 respectively and there was no occasion for the respondent corporation to go for an independent recruitment process afresh without having the said panel exhausted. It was also contended that since they extended the life of the panel twice by giving six months extension e:ach there was no occasion for the corporation to ignore the petitioners; for being absorbed in the post which fell vacant subsequently by giving suitable extension to the said panel.