BANSI LAL PANDITA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOME time in, 1981, a reference appears to have been made by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to the Public Service Commission for making a selection of two posts of Assistant Managers in the Government Press. Accordingly, the Commission issued an advertisement notice inviting applications from eligible candidates. Only six candidates were found eligible for interview, who were called for the same. Finally the Commission found two candidates suitable for appointment and recommended their appointments. The petitioner was also found suitable, but at third position. As only two posts were vacant which were referred to the Commission, the petitioner could not be appointed. The Commission, however, kept him on the waiting list and recommended -to the Government that if any vacancy of Assistant Manager occurs during one year, he may be appointed However, till 1986, no post fell vacant, and therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed as such. In 1986, two posts again fell vacant ard the Government appointed two persons including the petitioner against such posts on adhoc basis, pending selection by the Commission. The petitioner contends that he has already been selected by the Commission in 1981, and therefore, he should be appointed on regular basis. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition challenging the competence of the Commission to limit the period of waiting list to only one year.

(2.) THE respondents have filed objections to the admission of this wtit petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the admission of this writ petition.

(3.) IT was admitted by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of their arguments that there were no statutory rules for keeping of a waiting list by the Commission in respect of the service in question. If it is so, the Commission has on its own kept the petitioner on a waiting list for one year which practice has no statutory force. It was a sort of Complementary re -commendation in favour of the petitioner that as he was also found suitable at third position and only two vacancies were available, and therefore, to case any vacancy occurs during a period of one year, he should be coflsUlered for appointment. To his ill luck, no such vacancy fell vacant for about five years, and therefore, the question of keeping the petitioner on waiting list indefinitely is neither proper and nor provided under any Rules. During the course of five years, any more incumbents must have acquired right to apply for the posts fallen vacant in, 1986, and the petitioner shall have to be complete with such candidates. It is their fundamental right to be considered for such posts, alongwith the petitioner, if he too applies for the same and he cannot deprive them of the same, because an un -statutory complimentary recommendation was made by the commission in his favour half a decade back. If he challenges Commission to fix a rider of one year on the waiting list, he loses sight of the fact that the very recommendation made by it in his favour, was un -statutory and uncalled for.