CHIPAK ESSI Vs. LAI PUROIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE materials facts, leading to this appeal, are, in brief, as under: (i) Rule 9 of the Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat Subordinate Rules, 1989 (in short, '1989 Rules') prescribes percentage of reservation for promotion and direct recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (in short, 'ldc'), which falls in Group-C Cadre. The quota of promotion to Group-C Cadre from Group-D Cadre was, at the relevant point of time, 10%, and the remaining 90% of the posts, in Group-C Cadre, were to be filled up by direct recruitment. Having held, in terms of Rule 9, in respect of 10% quota of promotion, meant for Group-D employees, a typing speed test for appointment to the post of LDC, a merit-list was published, on 13. 04. 2000, by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The merit-list read as under:<FRM>JUDGEMENT_174_GAULT4_2009Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) WE have heard Mr. I. Basar, learned counsel for the appellants, and Ms. G. Deka, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) WHILE considering the present appeal, it needs to be pointed out that a select-list cannot be acted upon to fill up vacancies beyond the number of posts for which the selection test was held. Thus, in the present case, when the select-list had been prepared to fill up, by way of promotion, four vacant posts in Group-C cadre, not more than four candidates could have been promoted, out of the said select-list, against the said promotional quota. The reliance, in this regard, placed by the learned Single Judge, on Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of J and K and Ors. , reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486, is not misplaced, wherein the Apex Court has held to the effect that a select-list could not have been acted upon beyond the vacancies for which the select-list was prepared. Hence, the conclusion, reached by the learned Single Judge, that not more that four promotions could have been given on the basis of the select-list, in question, cannot be assailed in law.