Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 1458
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ITANAGAR BENCH
NELSON SAILO, J.
Buru Yamung - Petitioners
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 771(AP) of 2017
Decided On : 03-10-2018
For the Petitioner:R. Sonar, L. Tapa, T. Devi and M. Basar, Advocates
For the Respondents: D. Soki, Addl. Sr. GA
Headnote:
Constitution Of India ,1950 - Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2015 - Post of LDC Governors Secretarial - Recruitment was sought - Respondent authorities vide advertisement invited eligible candidates for filing up of one post of LDC amongst others in Governors - Petitioner responded to advertisement by submitting her application and written test was conducted on and viva-voce was conducted Despite lapse of a considerable period of time, since no results were declared in so far as post of LDC was concerned petitioner submitted an application under Right to Act seeking information from respondent authorities concerned on and in response to her application information sought for was given to petitioner vide communication by Deputy Secretary-cum-Public Information Office Governors Secretariat and As per information given to petitioner it was indicated that post of LDC sought to be filled up was an anticipated vacancy and it was proposed to be filled up as and when incumbent occupying post of LDC get promoted to next higher post of UDC and that Departmental Promotion Committee consider such promotion was yet to be held – Held, Decision relied upon by State counsel to present case in my considered opinion is not applicable in as much as no select list has been notified by respondent authorities and there is only one selection - In that view of matter select list cannot be said to have a validity period of one year and writ petition was filed by petitioner on - This Court vide order while issuing notice directed respondent authorities not to issue fresh advertisement against post of LDC in question till her claim was determined by Court and in terms of aforesaid projection admitted position is that post of LDC has not been filled up till date and Considering case in its entirety Court of considered opinion that petitioner has made out a case for interference of this Court and in result - Respondent authorities more particularly respondent is directed to publish select list for post of LDC as was prepared pursuant to selection made in terms of advertisement and After such publication petitioner shall be considered for her appointment to post of LDC establishment of respondent entire process shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one month from dated of receipt of a certified copy of this Order - writ petition disposed of
NELSON SAILO, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Soki, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for all the respondents.
2. Facts of the case may be noticed at the outset. The respondent authorities vide advertisement dated 17.03.2015 (annexure-I) invited eligible candidates for filing up of 1 (one) post of LDC amongst others in the Governor's Secretariat at Itanagar.
3. The petitioner responded to the advertisement by submitting her application. Consequently, written test was conducted on 27.06.2015 and thereafter, viva-voce was conducted on 18.07.2015. Despite lapse of a considerable period of time, since no results were declared in so far as the post of LDC was concerned, the petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2015, seeking information from the respondent authorities concerned on 16.11.2016. In response to her application, the information sought for was given to the petitioner vide communication dated 1.3.2017, by the Deputy Secretary-cum-Public Information Officer, Governor's Secretariat at Itanagar. As per the information given to the petitioner, it was indicated that the post of LDC sought to be filled up, was an anticipated vacancy and it was proposed to be filled up as and when the incumbent occupying the post of LDC get promoted to the next higher post of UDC and that the Departmental Promotion Committee(DPC) to consider such promotion, was yet to be held. Besides this information, the petitioner was furnished with a copy of the statement showing the result of the selection process for the post of LDC, wherein, the name of as many as 4 (four) candidates who appeared in the selection, were enlisted in order of merit Furthermore, against the information sought by the petitioner through another RTI application dated 27.07.2017, the petitioner was furnished with the Meeting Minutes dated 10.03.2017, by which the incumbent occupying the post of LDC in the Governor's Secretariat was recommended for promotion to the post of UDC. The petitioner, upon learning about the status of the selection, served a legal notice to the respondent No. 2 on 31.07.2017 to consider her promotion on the basis of the selection that was held pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.03.2015. The respondent authority concerned, against the legal notice, gave reply to the petitioner through her counsel on 21.08.2017, informing her that sufficient time had lapsed since the selection and since vacancy of the LDC post did not occur as was anticipated, the advice of the Department of Administrative Reforms was being sought vide letter dated 09.05.2017, on the validity of the recommendation of the selection committee.
4. Not being satisfied with the response, the petitioner, thereafter, submitted a legal notice to the respondent authorities for considering her in terms of the selection that was initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.03.2015, However, not getting any relief, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. Mr. R. Sonar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a bare perusal of the advertisement dated 17.03.2015, shows that the recruitment was sought against vacant posts and out of which, one post was meant for LDC. Therefore, the response given to the RTI application of the petitioner, dated 16.11.2016, on 01.03.2017, is only contrary to the advertisement itself. He, submits that even presuming that the vacancy was only anticipated, without admitting to the same, it is clear that the DPC which was held on 10.03.2017, recommended the incumbent holding the post of LDC to the post of UDC. Therefore, the respondent authorities by acting upon the selection process, initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.03.2015, ought to have immediately considered the petitioner against the said vacancy.
6. The learned counsel by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 on 12.03.2018, further submits that the
