Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and
Arunachal Pradesh)
ITANAGAR BENCH
WP(C) NO.142 OF 2006
D.D. 3.8.2006
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.N.Sarma
Shri Kipa Taja & Anr. ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. ... Respondents
Recruitment:
Petitioners were unsuccessful candidates in the recruitment to the post of District Fishery
Development Officer carried pursuant to advertisement dated 29.4.2005 in which respondents 5 and
6 were selected and respondent 7 was placed in the waiting list – The petitioners challenged the
selection process conducted by the APPSC on the ground that A.P. P.S.C. was not constituted as per
Rules and the Subject Expert of the Commission was not a person from outside the State etc. –
Petitioners also challenged the appointment of respondents 8, 9 and 10 who were first appointed on
contract basis without advertising the posts against 3 direct recruitment posts – High Court rejected
the contention of petitioners regarding selection of respondents 5 to 7 following the decisions of the
Supreme Court including (2000) 6 SCC 127 to the effect that the challenge made by the unsuccessful
candidates who appeared in the selection process but were unsuccessful is not to be entertained –
High Court quashed the appointment of respondents 8, 9 and 10 against 3 direct recruitment posts for
not advertising the posts holding that the same is violative of Rules and Articles 14 and 16.
Held:
When challenge is made by unsuccessful candidates who appeared in the selection process but
were unsuccessful is not to be entertained.
Further held:
Arunachal Pradesh PSC
It is one of the first principles of law that if a legislature enables to do something to be done in a
particular manner it should be done same manner. By appointing the respondent Nos.8, 9 and 10 on
contract basis without making any public advertisement, the respondent authorities have violated the
principles contained in schedule of the recruitment rules and cherished principle under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India as a result of which other intending candidates have been deprived of making
such application for the posts.
JUDGMENT
The two writ petitioners in this writ petition are serving as Extension Officer, Fisheries, in the
department of Fisheries, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The next higher grade for promotion
from the Extension Officer is the District Fishery Development Officer (DFDO)/Assistant Director of
Fisheries (ADF)/Farm Manager (FM) under the Department. The promotion to the aforesaid higher
177