IMPORTANT POINT
The waiting list for recruitment is exhausted upon appointment, necessitating a fresh selection process for any resultant vacancies.

JUDGMENT :

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred seeking inter-alia a direction to the respondent authority to consider and appoint the petitioner in a Grade-IV post of Peon in the establishment of the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam at Guwahati.

2. The case projected on behalf of the petitioner, in brief, is that by an Advertisement dated 29.03.2022, a process of recruitment was initiated to fill up a vacancy in Grade-IV post of Peon in the establishment of the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam at Guwahati. Responding to the said Advertisement, the petitioner submitted his candidature. Call Letters were issued to the eligible candidates to appear in an interview/viva-voce before a Selection Board on 13.03.2023. After completion of the process, a selection list was published on 31.03.2023. In the selection list dated 31.03.2023, one Ranjit Thapa was shown selected for appointment to the post of Peon. The said selected candidate could not, however, be offered appointment due to certain anomalies in his testimonials. While publishing the selection list on 31.03.2023, a waiting list containing the names of two candidates was also published and the petitioner’s name figured at serial no. 2 in the said waiting list.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent as the Appointing Authority had thereafter, issued an Order of Appointment dated 21.06.2023 in favour of the candidate at serial no. 1 in the said waiting list. On receipt of the Order of Appointment, the said candidate, Pradip Bhakat joined in the post of Peon in the establishment of the respondent. But in the month of November, 2023, Pradip Bhakat expired. As a result, the vacancy has arisen again in the Grade-IV post of Peon in the establishment of the Special Judge, CBI & NIA, Assam at Guwahati, for which the recruitment process was initiated by the Advertisement dated 29.03.2022.

4. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition seeking the above direction in the nature of mandamus.

5. I have heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. N. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Baishya, Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court [GHC] for the sole respondent.

6. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the vacancy has arisen in the Grade-IV post of Peon for which the recruitment process was initiated on 29.03.2022, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent to offer appointment to the petitioner for the said post. It has been submitted that the validity of the waiting list, prepared on 31.03.2023, is still in force. When no offer of appointment was made to him despite arising of the vacancy in November, 2023, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent on 02.02.2024 seeking consideration of his appointment in the said resultant vacancy in the post of Peon. As the respondent did not pay any heed to the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner has to approach this Court by the instant writ petition seeking inter-alia a direction to the respondent to consider his appointment in the said vacant post of Peon in the establishment of the respondent. The learned senior counsel has pointed out that the respondent authority has already once acted upon the waiting list, which has attained the status of the main selection list after the original select list became obsolete with ineligibility of the sole selected candidate. With the waiting list-cum-selection list having been revived with the demise of the appointed candidate, there can be no good and valid reason for not considering and appointing the petitioner from that waiting list-cum-selection list prepared for filling up the vacancy. Mr. Mahanta has further contended that the post of Peon is a Grade-IV post and it is a post in the lowest rung of the hierarchy in the establishment of the respondent. The pe