ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. TAKU TAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 8.7.99 the Rural Works Department of Government of Arunachal Pradesh requisitioned from Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short "the Commission") names for filling up 12 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil). This requisition was sent back by the Commission as it was found defective and the Government was requested to submit a fresh requisition. On 13.10.99 the Rural Works Department resubmitted a fresh requisition for 12 posts of the Assistant Engineer (Civil). In the requisition form the number of vacancies sought to be filled in by the Commission stated to be 12 in numbers. It was stated that no vacancy is expected to occur during the year. In pursuance of the requisition made for filling up 12 vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Civil) the Commission published an advertisement on 16.11.99 and thereafter conducted written test and viva-voce. On 23.5.2000 after conduct of the written test and viva-voce the Rural Works Department requested the Commission to send 6 more names over and above the advertised vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Civil). But on the very next day i.e. 24.5.2000 the Rural Works Department sent another letter withdrawing the request made by the letter dated 23.5.2000. Thereafter the result off the examination was declared on 26.5.2000. On 30.5.2002 names of 12 numbers of selected candidates were furnished to the Rural Works Department for necessary action.

(2.) After the Commission has sent the names of the candidates of the advertised vacancies a communication dated 2.6.2000 was sent by the Rural Works Department requesting the Commission to furnish 5 additional names for the purpose of filling up the anticipated vacancies, which were supposed to occur within a period of one year. When the Commission did mot respond to the request made by true Department three non selected candidates submitted representation to the Commission requesting it to act iin conformity with the letter of the Rural Works Department dated 2.6.2000. But the Commission refused to oblige the request made by the three non-selected candidates and therefore, they filed a writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus against the Commission directing to furnish 5 additional names of selected candidates for filling up the anticipated vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 31.8.2000 allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that in the original advertisement dated 16.11.99 as it has been mentioned that the number of posts is subject to variation it was incumbent on the part of the Commission to send the names of 5 additional candidates, whose names have been requisitioned by the Rural Works Department and the Commission cannot refuse to send the names.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the present appeal is filed challenging the directions of the learned Single Judge. Neither does it appear from the petition filed by the petitioners/respondents nor from the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge that the Commission has prepared a waiting list of the candidates in order of merit after the names of 12 candidates have been selected as per advertisement. Even if it may be taken that the Commission has prepared a waiting list after the selection of the candidates for the post which have been advertised, the Commission could not have any authority to send the names of those candidates over and above the selected candidates as per the advertisement.