IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
NANI TAGIA, J.
Shri Yajom Ete, S/o Shri Liya Ete – Appellant
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
WP (C) 311 (AP) 2021
Decided on : 02-03-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 468, 469, 471, 120B – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7/8/13 (1) (b) & 13 (2) – U.P. Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 – Rule 26 – Writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking a direction to respondent No.3/ Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar to recommend name of petitioner for appointment against any of post that had fallen vacant due to resignation of selected candidates –Held, Accordingly, Court, hereby, direct Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board(APSSB) , more particularly, respondents No. 2 & 3, to recommend names of all 5 (five) wait listed candidates whose Roll Nos. have been indicated hereinabove, though 4 (four) of them have not approached this Court for recommendation of their names, as mandated under Rule 16 clause 4 of Rules of 2018, in response to letter written by Director(TRIHMS) to Secretary-cum-Registrar, APIC, vide Memo TRIHMS/E- letter written by Director of Health Services to Chairman, APSSB, vide Memo No. MEST-; letter written by Secretary-cum-Registrar, APIC to Chairman, APSSB, vide F/No. APIC- as well as order, written by Principal Secretary(Fin.), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide Memo indicating a vacant post of UDC in the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, on account of resignation given by taking into account, preference given by candidates in waiting list, as expeditiously as possible but, in any case, not later than 4 (four) weeks from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order – Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent No.3/the Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board (for short, APSSB’), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment against any of the post that had fallen vacant due to the resignation of the selected candidates (though, categorically does not refer to any of the select list but from the pleadings and the annexures, it appears that the petitioner refers to select list, dated 04.12.2019 issued by the Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, Arunachal Pradesh Staff Board vide No.APSSB-64/2019).
2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition insofar it is relevant for adjudication of this case, briefly stated, are, as follows:-
II. It is the further case of the petitioner that some time in the month of December, 2020, the petitioner had come to know from a reliable source that one of the candidates who had joined pursuant to the aforesaid select list had resigned. Upon such information received, the petitioner visited the office of the APSSB and on enquiry, it was confirmed that one Shri Takhe Babing had resigned from the post of Store Keeper some time in the month of June/July, 2020 who had earlier joined the TRIHMS. Thereafter, it had also come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the Director of TRIHMS had requested the APSSB to recommend one candidate from the waiting list for filling up the post of Store Keeper that had been vacated on resignation by Shri Takhe Babing. Upon such information received, the petitioner filed an RTI application before the PIO of the APSSB which was received by the P.A. to Joint Secretary on 12.01.2021. The information sought for by the petitioner was, however, denied by the PIO of the APSSB vide letter, dated 25.02.2021 written to the petitioner.
III. Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the First Appellate authority against the denial of the information sought for by the petitioner as indicated above. In the meanwhile, the PIO of the APSSB furnished the information sought for by the petitioner vide letter dated 05.05.2021 vide No. APSSB-76/2019/1083, whereby, following information was furnished to the petitioner indicating one vacancy each at TRIHMS; Directorate of Accounts & Treasuries; and Directorate of Health Services, respectively, and 2
Shankarsan Dash-vs-Union of India; reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47
State of U.P. and Others-vs-Harish Chandra & ors.
Surinder Singh & ors. -vs-State of Punjab and Another
The petitioner's claim for appointment on the post of JLO from the reserved waiting list was found to be valid as he approached the Court before the expiry of the wait list, and the Court allowed the....
Candidates are entitled to consideration for available posts if a vacancy arises during the validity of the selection list despite administrative delays.
The waiting list candidates have the right to claim appointment if the candidates from the main list do not join, and the State must provide justifiable, non-arbitrary reasons for not filling up the ....
Sub-clause (vi) of Rule 277A of Rules of 1996 read as Authorized Agency shall prepare category wise select list of candidates declared successful on basis of criteria of selection laid down.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the action of the respondents in not preparing a waiting list in compliance with Rule 15(3) of Rules 1992 was arbitrary and against the spirit....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.