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

Madhya Pradesh PSC
have been included in the merit list and not in the waiting list. The P.S.C. did not find sufficient number
of Scheduled Tribe candidates, therefore, it did not enlist any candidate against those vacancies. In
such a situation Rule 11(6) became operative and it was the duty of the State Government to fill in
those vacancies by issuing appointment orders to the candidates of general category from the waiting
list and to carry forward those vacancies for the subsequent selection. Petitioners submitted
representations within time and still the State Government took no action on their representations.
Those representations were rejected by a non-speaking order only on 27.5.88 (Annexure R/4).
9. If the language of Rule 11(6) is that as is quoted by the respondents in para ‘7’ of their return,
in that case, the limitation of one year would not be attracted at all, since the Rule 11(6) requires readvertisement
of the vacancies left unfilled. This is usually done by the P.S.C. on request by the State
Government. Even after such re-advertisement if the vacancies remain unfilled, the State Government
is required to fill up those vacancies from amongst the general candidates and an equivalent number of
additional vacancies to be carried forward for the subsequent selections This process is bound to
consume much more time than one year before it reaches the stage of issue appointment orders to the
members of the general category. If the limitation of one year is applied to these appointments it will
result in not only breach of the Recruitment Rules but shall result in denial of rights Art. 16 of the
Constitution. Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted.
10. Lastly it was urged that mere inclusion of the name in the select list does not confer any right of
appointment on the candidates. Further the State is under no obligation to fill up all the 30 vacancies
advertised by it. The argument cannot be accepted. It is correct that the State is under no obligation
to fill up all the posts advertised nor the petitioners get an indefeasible right to be appointed as was
held in Shankasan Dash vs. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 1612). This decision however, further lays
down that the State cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily. In the present case the respondents have
been denying the claim of the petitioners by mis-interpreting the relevant Recruitment Rules. Therefore,
the objection raised during argument must be rejected.
11. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is partly allowed, the respondents State is
directed to fill up the remaining 5 vacancies by issuing appointment orders to the candidates in the
waiting list in order of merit and to carry forward the additional vacancies of Schedule Tribes as
provided under Rule 11(6). The petitioners shall be entitled to notional seniority w.e.f 11.2.87, the
date from which the appointment orders were issued to other candidates. No order as to costs.
***
707