The respondents cannot benefit from their mistake and deny appointment to the petitioner, and their actions were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

1. The present petition is filed with the following prayer:-

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition; and further be pleased to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Accountant under TSP category from the waiting list/reserved list dated 6.1.2014 taking the same to be live as late as on 22.4.2014 when the petitioner made his first representation.”

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the present case are as follows:-

(i) That the respondents vide advertisement dated 24.06.2013 invited applications for appointment on various posts; whereby, 130 posts were for ‘Junior Accountant’.

(ii) That vide amended advertisement (Annexure R/1), 5 out of the said 130 posts were earmarked for candidates belonging to the TSP General Area (Tribal Sub-Plan Area).

(iii) That an appointment order was issued to the selected candidates on 26.09.2013. However, due to an error on part of the respondents, several candidates were selected against the seats reserved for candidates belonging to the TSP Area, despite not belonging to the same. Hence, vide order dated 27.09.2013, the candidature of the ineligible candidates was cancelled.

(iv) In consequence of the order dated 27.09.2013 and in lieu of the vacant positions, 4 additional candidates were offered appointment vide order dated 30.09.2013 (Annexure R/3).

(v) Thereafter, on 06.01.2014, a reserve list/waiting list of candidates belonging to the TSP General area was issued wherein the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2. However, upon verification of documents, it was observed that the candidate placed at serial No.1, Mr. Yuvraj Singh Shekhawat, was erroneously placed at the said position, despite not belonging to the TSP area. As a result, vide order dated 09.05.2014, the appointment order of the said ineligible candidate was cancelled and he was declared ineligible.

(vi) In this background, the petitioner submitted his representation(s) to the respondents for consideration of his candidature in lieu of the fact that the reserved list/waiting list was issued with the inclusion of an ineligible candidate at serial No.1, as a result of which, the petitioner was placed at serial No.2.

(vii) Aggrieved by inaction on part of the respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in SBCWP No. 9259/2014, whereby vide order dated 10.09.2014, the petition was disposed of with a direction to approach the respondents by way of a representation.

(viii) In compliance of the said order, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents for the consideration of his candidature (Annexure-05). However, the same was kept pending by the respondents. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 17.10.2014, the representation submitted by the petitioner was disposed of awaiting financial sanction from the State Government.

(ix) Aggrieved by the impugned actions of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner qua the reserved list, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically submitted that the respondents cannot be permitted premium for their own wrongdoing(s) in repeatedly considering the candidature of ineligible candidates, without conducting any timely document verification, against the positions reserved for eligible candidates belonging to the TSP Area. Moreover, the respondents were duty bound to only consider the candidature of eligible applicants and the inclusion of ineligible candidates cannot be permitted to defeat the rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned actions of the respondents are against the principles of reasonableness and fair play as the respondents were obligated to recast the reserved list/waiting list on account of the fact that the same was vitiated due to the inclusion of ineligible candidates. It is a settled p