Vinod Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—The petitioner, before this Court, was a candidate for the selection/examination of Data Entry Operator (in short DEO) in the Industrial Training Institute (in short ''ITI''), Uttarakhand. The petitioner is a Scheduled Caste candidate. The result was declared on 26.08.2010 and the waiting list result was issued on 28.08.2010. The name of the petitioner is figured in the select waiting list at serial No. 6 in the Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner is the only Scheduled Caste candidate in the said waiting list. There were four posts of Scheduled Caste candidates for the post of Data Entry Operator, out of these four posts one of the candidates, namely, Mr. Vinay Kumar did not join the said post. The post remained vacant and moreover, in the same selection process vacant post was never filled by any candidate. Therefore, one post, belongs to Scheduled Caste category, was never filled by any candidate. The last candidate joined, as per the said selection process, on 15.06.2012. This fact is admitted by the respondents. Since the post of Data Entry Operator, belongs to Scheduled Caste category, is vacant and the petitioner is the only Scheduled Caste candidate in the waiting list, he is entitled to be selected on such post. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being WPSS No. 514 of 2013, which was disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 14.05.2013, which reads as under :--

"Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel for the State.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No. 2, Director, Directorate Training & Employment Uttarakhand, Haldwani, District Nainital to treat copy of the writ petition as representation and decide claim and contention of the petitioner passing a speaking order after service of notice upon the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order."

Now the representation of the petitioner has been decided vide order dated 22.07.2013 by respondent No. 2 in which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that though his name figured in the waiting list, but the waiting list only survives for a period of one year and the petitioner is seeking appointment after a period of one year. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner before this Court.

It is undoubtedly true that the life of waiting list survives only for a period of one year. However, the question is that which is the exact period of one year starts. As per the ruling of the Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir & others v. Satpal, rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 938-939 of 2013 (arose out of SLP (C) Nos. 31591-31592 of 2012) : (Reported in State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs. Sat Pal, , in which it was held that one year period would start from the date of the existing vacancies, were filled.

In the present case, all the vacancies were not filled till 2012, in fact the last candidate, who joined on the said post on 15.06.2012. Therefore, saying that the select waiting list has exhausted its life would not be correct. Moreover, this Court has already decided this controversy in a similar matter in WPSS No. 1979 of 2013 (Anil Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand & others, decided on 06.05.2014). In view of the above, the writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand & others (WPSS No. 1979 of 2013 decided on 06.05.2014), with the direction to respondents to appoint the petitioner as Data Entry Operator, unless there is some ineligibility with his candidature.