- (1.) LIST revised. None present on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THIS case has a chequered history. The selection process for Class III employees started with an advertisement of 13 vacancies to be filled up under the provisions of Rule 23 (8) of the U. P. Subordinate Officers Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 as amended by the 1st Amendment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter called the Rules, 1986 ). While preparing the select list as per the requirement of the said Rules 1985, wait list containing names equivalent to 25 per cent of the total number of vacancies advertised had to be prepared. Select list was prepared which was valid for a period of one year, contained 13 names in the merit list and five names in the wait list. The respondents in the appeal had been placed at Serial Nos. 4 and 5 of the wait list. All the 13 vacancies which had been advertised had been filled up from the merit list so prepared without resorting to the wait list. Subsequent thereto, three vacancies arose, which were filled up from the persons at Serial Nos. 1 to 3 of the wait list. The State Authorities cancelled the remaining wait list as it contained names of more than 25 per cent vacancies. As two more vacancies occurred, subsequently fresh advertisement was issued on 24. 4. 1993 and the select list was prepared and the said vacancies were filled up from the said selection. The question arose as to whether the said advertisement could have been published for the two vacancies which came into existence subsequent to the vacancies advertised earlier for which the merit list had been prepared or the respondents were to offer appointment to the petitioner as per the wait list as the period of one year from its notification had not expired.
(3.) RESPONDENTS filed Writ Petition No. 28731 of 1993, challenging the said order cancelling the unexhausted wait list on the ground that as the select list was valid for a period of one year from the date of its commencement in existence and two vacancies had occurred during its lifetime, the vacancies ought to have been filled up from the said wait list, rather than inviting fresh applications by issuing fresh advertisement. The State respondent contested the writ petition on the ground that as per the Rules 1985 only names of 25 per cent of the total vacancies advertised could be placed in the wait list and in view of the fact that only 13 vacancies had been advertised, the wait list could have only 3 and not 5 names. Names of the present respondents could not have been included in the wait list. The writ petition has been allowed on the ground that after the selection had been made on all the 13 posts advertised the wait list would still remain valid for 1 year. The two vacancies which occurred because of the retirement of the employees respondent-petitioner ought to have been offered the appointment against the said newly caused vacancies as the wait list was alive.;