MANJULA KACHHAP Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the petitioners are waiting list candidates for the post of Lady Supervisor and they want appointment. In all there were selection of 12 Lady Supervisors. In pursuance of the public advertisement for 12 vacancies all the candidates who were selected have already joined. The petitioners are in the waiting list and under the hope that waiting list will be operated but it has not been operated at all. The petitioners have recounted the vacancy for the post so advertised namely. Lady Supervisor and have pointed out that instead of 12 there were 16 vacancies. This information was obtained under the Right to Information Act. 2005 and as per Annexure -3 to the memo of the petition there were 4 more vacancies for the post of Lady Supervisor as on May 2009.

(2.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that at least 4 waiting list candidates who are the petitioners before this Court ought to have been in the selected list for the post of Lady Supervisor. There is a wrong calculation of the vacancy of the post by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the advertisement issued by the respondents for the post in question which is at Annexure -A to the counter affidavit. As per Clause 6 of the advertisement especially second paragraph thereof for all the vacant posts of Lady Supervisor the merit list will be operated and on the basis of this Clause 6 of the advertisement also it is claimed by the petitioners that in all there were 16 vacancies and. therefore all the 4 waiting list candidates ought to have been appointed on the post of Lady Supervisor. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there were no statutory rules not to operate the waiting list and hence also the petitioners who are in the waiting list for the post of Lady Supervisor should have been appointed like those selected candidates because there were already 4 vacancies with the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Naseem Ahmad and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 734 especially upon paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 thereof and it is thus concluded that even though the petitioners are in the waiting list because of four more vacancies' available at the relevant time for the post in question these petitioners could not have been enlisted in the waiting list but they ought to have been enlisted in the selected list candidates and they ought to have been appointed on the post of Lady Supervisor and therefore this petition may kindly be allowed.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: