The main legal point established in the judgment is that vacancies in excess of the advertised posts can be filled only in emergent situations and on policy decisions.

1. These two Letters Patent Appeals, for short LPAs, raise a common issue for adjudication, therefore, are taken up for disposal together. Before dwelling on the merits of the case, let us advert a little on the events leading to the institution of instant appeals.

2. Two writ petitions being SWP Nos. 842/2000 and 666/2000 had been filed questioning certain selections made by respondents 1 and 2 against the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Pediatrics.

3. The controversy, as per the pleadings, is that an advertisement Notice no. 22-PSC of 1998 dated 12th October, 1998, was responded to by all the aspiring candidates including the petitioners. The said advertisement had sought candidatures for the selection/ appointment of two posts of Lecturers in the discipline of Pediatrics one each for general and reserved category.

4. Petitioners were not allowed to participate in the selection process for being ineligible.

5. The selection process was undertaken and it culminated into selection of respondent no. 3, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Parray, from amongst the general category candidates and because of the non-availability of a reserved category candidate the post meant for the said category remained unfilled. However, a wait list of three more candidates was prepared by the respondents who too, subsequently, were appointed against the post of Lecturers.

6. The said action of the respondents 1 and 2 was challenged on the ground that there were only two vacancies which had been put to advertisement and for which the wait list had been prepared. The adjustment of three more candidates clandestinely made by the respondents from the wait list prepared for making a selection of only two posts speaks of ulterior motives on the part of respondents and thereby depriving the petitioners to stand a chance of competing for the post as by the time the wait list was made operational the petitioners had attained the eligibility, therefore, respondents were required under law to afford them an opportunity of competing for the post by re-advertising the posts.

7. Upon being considered, the writ petition was dismissed by the Learned Writ Court vide its judgment dated 18th March, 2002.

8. Against the said judgment the petitioners filed a Letters Patent Appeal, and the learned Division Bench, vide its judgment dated 25th August, 2003, disagreed with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Writ Court and set aside its judgment.

9. Feeling aggrieved Respondents preferred Special Leave Petitions, for short SLPs, before the Hon'ble Apex Court of the Country. Hon'ble Apex Court, while allowing the appeals remitted the case to this court for its disposal afresh. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant portions of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court herein, thus:

"Additionally we find that though the State was asked to produce the files, it appears that for reasons beyond its control the files containing the alleged policy decision could not be produced for perusal of the Bench hearing the appeals.

In the aforesaid background, we remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. Parties shall be permitted to file further affidavits and documents in support of their respective stand. As undertaken by the learned counsel for the State, files shall be produced as and when required by the Bench hearing the appeal.

The existing position pursuant to interim order of this court shall continue till disposal of the matter afresh by the High Court. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits, which shall be considered by the High Court uninfluenced by any observation made by it earlier in the impugned judgment."

10. This is how the appeals are being adjudicated upon.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

12. Petitioners have come to the court and sought the reliefs prayed for in the appeal only on the ground that State respondents were not justified in making selection of the wait list candidates against t