Ved Singh vs State and Others

A perusal of the record shows that writ petition was admitted for 24.04.2000 when time was allowed for filing counter. Thereafter, matter

remained pending but counter was not filed.

On 15.02.2001 again when counter was not filed on behalf of official respondents following order was passed :

Present:

Sh. O.P. Thakur. Advocate for the petitioner.

Mrs. Seema Shekhar. GA for respondents and 1 and 2.

Mr. Sunil Sethi, Advocate for respondent No. 3

It has been stated by Sh. Sethi that so far his client is concerned, it has sent necessary recommendation to respondents 1 and 2.

On 24th of April, 2000, four weeks time was given to file counter on behalf of respondents. Till date counter has not been filed. As a matter of

indulgence, last opportunity is allowed failing which it shall be presumed that respondents admit the factual assertions made in the writ and the case

will be dealt accordingly.

List this case on 14th of March, 2001.

In this background matt was finally heard on 12.04.2001 in the absence of counter on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Record of the case shows

that objections have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.

At the time of hearing of writ petition learned counsel fro the parties were not at variance that respondent No. 3 vide advertisement Notice No.

3 of 1997 dated 29.04.1997 invited applications for different posts. For the purpose of present writ petition, this advertisement so far it concerns

Calling for applications to the posts of Junior Engineer Grade II in Civil/Mechanical/ Chemical Engineering is only relevant. It was further not in

dispute that there were in all 542 posts of Junior Engineer available in the State, break up whereof is 374 posts in the civil Department. 162

Mechanical Department and 6 in Chemical Department.

So far petitioner is concerned he belongs to RBA category and has passed his degree examination in Civil Engineering from Engineering

College, Hamirpur in the year 1995. Thus in response to aforesaid advertisement notice AnnexureC. Petitioner submitted his application for the

posts meant for RBA Category. He was called for interview but was not selected, however was placed in list of degree holders Civil Engineers

belonging to RBA Category. As per the record of the writ petition his name figured at S. No. 2 in the wait list of the degree holders Engineers

belonging to RBA category. Further case of the petitioner that against 374 posts of Civil Engineers, 20 % quota of RBA category works to 36

posts. This is as per SRO 126 of 1994 which again it was not disputed is applicable of three branches of Engineers for which recruitment was to

be made by respondents 1 and 2 on the basis of recommendation of respondent No. 3.

As per further detailed in the writ petition, against 36 posts of Civil Engineers in RBA category, 29 had joined and remaining 7 degree holders

have not cared to join and thus these posts were not filled up. It has been further stated that some of the candidates namely Sh. Ajay Wazir and

Shri Karanjit Singh have joined the Central Government service and have not joined after having been selected. In the aforesaid circumstances,

petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to operate the wait list and thus appoint persons in order of merit including the

petitioner who is at serial number 2 in such wait list, hence this writ petition.

As already observed that when respondents were put to notice respondents 1 and 2 did not got file reply/objections. It is only respondent No. 3

who has filed his objections. Accordingly to said respondent this writ petition is not maintainable. It has further admitted that petitioner did apply as

a candidate belonging to RBA category in the reserved category and his name was shown in the wait list. Facts in this behalf were specifically

pleaded by petitioner in para 7 of the writ petition. Stand of respondent No. 3 in this behalf is that the contents of this para are admitted to be true.

It is further pleaded by petitioner in para 7 of the writ petition. Stand of respondent No. 3 in this behalf is that the contents of this para are admitted

to be true. It is further pleaded by respondent No. 3 that petitioner had scored 52.66 marks, whereas last selected candidate in the category of

petitioner had scored 52.89 marks. Thus he is not entitled to maintain this writ petition. This respondent No. 3 has categorically stated that so far

joined or nonjoining of recommended candidate is concerned it is something that concerns respondents 1 and 2. This stand of respondent No. 3

appears to be just. As its role was over after it has made recommendation alongwith wait list if any having been published and recommendation

made to the Government.

At the risk of repetition it may be appropriate to observe that so far averments made in the writ petition are concerned those have remained

uncontroverted. Adequate time was allowed to the State Government and official respondents to file counter. For reasons best known to these

respondents, needful had not been done.

While resisting the petition Mrs. Seema Shekhar submitted that petitioner has no right to seek direction/mandamus against her clients i.e.

respondents No. 1 and 2 to operate the wait list. She was directed to produce the record. Needful has been done which after examination was

returned to her.

From official record facts which have been averred are by the large corroborated and particularly all the 36 candidates selected against RBA

category degree holders in Civil Engineering having been not joined. In addition to this petitioner being at serial number 2 in the wait list is also

established from the record.

Question that arises is that whether direction can be issued to respondents to operate the wait list or not. Contention of Mrs. Seema Shekar

need to be noted. According to her no such direction can be issued as selected candidates have no right to insist for issuance of such a direction.

According to her it is for the authorities like her clients to see whether they want to exhaust the list of selected / wait list candidates or not. As such

she has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

On the other hand learned counsel for petitioner forcefully urged that advantage of operation of select list cannot be denied to the petitioner in

the special circumstances of this case. When degree holder candidates in civil engineering did not join so far those recommended in RBA category

were concerned. Respondents 1 and 2 ought to have operated the wait list reason being that the purpose of issuance of such list gets defeated.

Situation would be otherwise if all the recommended candidates joined. However, that is not the situation in the present case. In the face of

peculiar circumstances of this case plea that petitioner has no right to insist upon respondents to operate wait list and thus appoint candidates there

from in the category of RBA degree holders civil engineering is hereby rejected. Once this conclusion is arrived at there is no escape but for

allowing this writ petition in the circumstances as well as facts which are peculiar to this case and is ordered accordingly.

No other point is urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to operate the wait list which finds

mention in file No. PN4Estt.1/95 REII, Work Department Office PR. Secy (Works) section Coordination on the subject Absorption of

unemployed Engineers in Govt. Service (Constitution of Committee) at its page 322, AnnexureC duly signed by Secretary Service Selection

Board, Jammu. By operating this list respondents 1 and 2 shall do the needful by issuing the appointment letters to such candidates in order to

merit to make the number in RBA category to 36 in Civil Engineering, of course subject to fulfillment of other requirements as per law. Steps in this

behalf will be taken on or before 15.06.2001 by respondents 1 and 2. No costs.