The select list for promotion could not be operated beyond the vacancies for which it was prepared, and appointments made beyond the vacancies were deemed illegal.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by 16 group "D" employees working under the Respondents. They have made a prayer for cancellation of alleged illegal appointments purportedly made after the expiry of the panel list prepared for the purpose. Further prayer made in this writ petition is to conduct fresh selection for promotion to group "C" cadre from group "D" cadre as per Recruitment Rules.

2. The fats are not in dispute. As per the Recruitment Rules with which we are concerned in this proceeding, the post of LDC in the department is to be filled up 90% by direct recruitment and 10% by promotion from amongst the Group "D" employees. It is this 10% quota of promotion with which the present proceeding is concerned. The Recruitment Rule is called the Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat Subordinate Rules, (for short the "1989 Rules"). Rule 9 of the 1989 Rules prescribes the percentage of reservation for promotion and direct recruitment to the post of LDC. Rule 11 of the 1989 Rules lays down the procedure for preparation of the select list. As per Rule 13 of the 1989 Rules, the select list shall ordinarily be in force for 12 months unless it is reviewed or revised under Rule 12. The requirement of Rule 12 is that the Selection Committee/Departmental Promotion Committee shall meet at least once a year and review and revise the select list every year. Thus on both counts, the validity of the select list is normally for the period of 1 year or its expiry in absence of any review, the select list cannot be operated beyond the period of 1 year.

3. In the instant case, the selection committee conducted the test for appointment to the post of LDC against the 10% quota of promotion from amongst the Group "D" employees and the select list was published vide Annexure-C, communication dated 13.4.2000. The select list was prepared in order of merit containing the names of 16 (sixteen) candidates. However only 4 (four) candidates could be recommended for appointment against the existing 4(four) vacancies in the post of LDC. Thus the remaining 12 candidates will have to be treated as wait listed candidates.

4. There is no dispute that all the 4(four) vacant posts for which the selection was conducted have been filled up. If that be so, the select list forwarded by Annexure "C", communication dated 13.4.2000, got exhausted with the appointment of 4(four) candidates in order of merit against 4(four) vacancies, for which the selection was conducted. There was or is no question of further extension of the select list, once the purpose for which the select list was prepared is achieved. Even otherwise also, the validity of select list being only for a period of one year, in absence of any review or revision of the same as per requirement of Rule 12 of the 1989 Rules, the same cannot be made operative beyond the period of 1 year. However altogether different consideration arises in this case as to the validity of the select list during the period in which certain appointments were made making the challenge to which the instant writ petition has been filled. There is no dispute that the select list was prepared to fill up 4(four) existing vacancies. All the 4(four) vacancies were filled up during the validity period of the select list. Once the propose was achieved by appointing the 4(four) selected candidates in order of their merit against the 4(four) existing vacancies, there was no question of further extension of the select list for any further appointment, against future vacancies.

5. It appears that some of the selected candidates made representation before the official Respondents to extend the validity of the list and the same was rejected by Annexure "D" communication dated 30.5.2003. The approach adopted by the Respondents in the given circumstances was the right approach. Firstly, because the list had already spent its force with the appointments of 4(four) candidates against the existing 4(four) vacancies and secondly, even