The Division Bench's order excluding candidates from appointment based on irregularities in the selection process is binding and precludes the entitlement to appointment based solely on inclusion in the select list.

JUDGMENT :

The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality.

The instant intra-court appeal has been listed under the heading ‘For Orders’ with defects.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that defect as has been pointed out by the office being minor in nature, therefore, the same may be ignored and the matter may be heard finally on merit.

This Court after perusing the office note as also the report of the Stamp Reporter and taking into consideration the nature of defect, deem it fit and proper to ignore the same, accordingly, the defect as has been pointed out by the office, is ignored.

The instant appeal is barred by limitation and as such, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has pressed the delay condonation application being I.A.No.3862 of 2019. I.A.No.3862 of 2019

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 102 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

Heard.

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

Accordingly, I.A.No.3862 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 102 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No.315 of 2019

This appeal has been heard for its final disposal at this stage on the consent of the parties.

2. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1527 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the Writ Court has declined to pass a positive direction upon the respondents pertaining to appointment of the writ petitioners on the post of Constable in pursuant to Advertisement No.01 of 2004.

3. The brief facts of the case are required to be referred herein which reads as hereunder:-

The respondents-authorities have come out with an Advertisement No.01 of 2004 inviting application for filling up the post of Constable. The writ petitioners had participated in the process of selection and had appeared in physical as also the written test and after proper verification, they were recommended for selection for appointment on the post of Constable as per the select list published in the daily newspaper dated 09.12.2004 vide Annexure-1 annexed to the writ petition. The aforesaid select list was the subject matter of question before this Court in a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1458 of 2004, which was disposed of on 13.03.2005 with a direction to the Superintendent of Police of the district to fill up the available post of Constable. In the meantime, the respondent-authority passed an order dated 10.12.2005 cancelling the selection of Police Constable which was challenged in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006 and vide order dated 07.11.2005, the cancellation of selection has been quashed.

It is the claim of the writ petitioners that since they were working as Home Guard and their case is fully covered by the judgment rendered in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006, the action of the respondents is in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Being aggrieved by non-appointment on the aforesaid post, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein the direction for issuance of appointment letter in their favour.

The writ petitioners have agitated the ground that in spite of selection, the respondents in an illegal and arbitrary manner have deprived the writ petitioners for appointment to the post in question. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that their non-selection is based upon the findings of an enquiry, wherein the conclusion has been arrived against the writ petitioners but without giving opportunity to them.

It is the further grievance of the writ pe