A double judge bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Manoj Kumar Tiwari has held that the Uttarakhand Public service commission is under no obligation to fill up that 4 posts which were vacant due to pending PIL. A petition has no vested right to demand or claim that he should be appointed against the advertised post.
Facts:
The relevant facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the respondents for recruitment against 60 posts of Forest Range Officer on 03.03.2012. Of these, 22 posts were reserved and 38 posts were unreserved. It appears the State reserved 04 posts for Aandolankaris, who participated in the Aandolan for creation of the State of Uttarakhand. That reservation was challenged before this Court in a Public Interest Litigation, being WPPIL No. 67 of 2011. The respondents issued the list of 56 selected candidates for their appointment. In respect of 04 posts, since there was a challenge raised in the aforesaid writ petition, the appointments were not made. The writ petitions were allowed, and the reservation granted for the Aandolankaris was quashed. In this process, about 06 years were consumed. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition to quash the impugned decision taken by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to repatriate the 4 posts of Forest Range Officer to the government, communicated vide letter no. 453/01/E-1/2006-07 dated 03.01.2019 and direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Forest Range Officer in accordance with the merit list/advertisement issued by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission bearing no.23/31/Gopan/Van Chhetra Adhikari/2012-13, dated 10.07.201.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the decision of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission not to fill up the four posts after lapse of six years-when the Public Interest Litigation was decided on 07.03.2018, cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. In the meantime, score of other persons would have become eligible to offer their candidature for the post in question, and their interest, as well as the interest of administration to recruit fresh blood justifies the decision taken by the respondents not to proceed with appointment against the four posts in question. The Court relied on the decision of SC in Shankarsan Dash V. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 where it was held that there is no vested right in a selected candidate to demand or claim that he/she should be appointed against the advertised post.
Decision:
The Court has find no force in the writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari and dismissed it.
Case: Mohd. Imran Khan. vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and another
Citation: WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 536 OF 2019
Coram: Justice Vipin Sanghi and Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Dated: 11.10.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
