V.K.BIST & BARIN GHOSH,C.J. - (1.) DELAY Condonation Application No. 11133 of 2010 Learned counsel for the State is not objecting the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, we allow the said application. Special Appeal No. 240 of 2010 Admit. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing.
(2.) IN July, 2008, an advertisement was published indicating therein the number of vacancies available. The purpose of the advertisement was to invite applications for filling up those vacancies. Appellants responded to the advertisement. Being eligible, they were asked to participate in the selection process. After selection process was completed, it transpired that appellants do not have such merit that they can supply the vacancies advertised. The select list was made on 16 th November, 2008 where, though the names of appellants figured, but they were way below those, who could supply the advertised vacancies on merit. It is being contended that since the Rules do not deal with the subject, it must be deemed that the said select list was alive for one year from 16 th November, 2008 and any vacancy cropping up in course of validity of the select list should be supplied therefrom. We, outrightly, reject the said contention. Unless Rules specifically provide to the contrary, a select list prepared for supplying ascertained advertised vacancies comes to an end the moment such vacancies are supplied. The Rules governing the subject do not provide preparation of a select list for the purpose of supplying vacancies that would accrue thereafter. Unless the Rules do say so, the law does not permit any vacancy to be supplied from such a dead select list. On the premise that the appellants were entitled to supply subsequent vacancies, they challenged the subsequent advertisement published on 14 th August, 2009. The challenge thus thrown having no substance in law, the same has been rejected by the judgment and order under appeal.
(3.) THE other contention was that it was decided by the Officers of the Department, including the Chief Conservator of Forest, that the vacancies that would crop up would be supplied by seasonal workers. Those decisions, being contrary to the Rules made by the State Government, are of no effect. Accordingly, the said contention too has been rejected.;