Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) The petitioners, who were registered in the respective employment exchanges, were sponsored for being considered for the post of Assistant Grade-Ill under the respondent. The petitioners appeared in the written examination and having qualified, were called for interview. After participation in the interview the petitioners came to know that all Shed Tallymen, who were taken over from the Food Department, had been prompted to the Assistant Grade although they did not appear either in the written tes tor in the interview. When the result of the petitioners 'interview was not being announced, they moved representation on 19-2-1987 followed by a second representation on 6-3-1987 for declaration of result. As no redress was made available to the petitioners they moved the present writ petition for commanding the respondents to declare the result of the examination held for the selection of the candidates for the posts of Assistant Grade-Ill and for a direction to fill up 90 per cent of the vacancies by way of direct recruitment. The relevant procedures as contained in Regulation 9 and 10 of the Regulations framed for appointment to category-III pests under the respondents have been annexed as annexure no. 1 to the writ petition.
(2.) The respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the Regulations as annexed at annexure no. 1 to the writ petition did not give the correct picture, and a copy of the relevant extract is annexed at annexure C.A I for the purpose of showing that the quota for direct recruitment was 70% and not 90% as contended by the petitioners. It has also been stated that the Headquarter sent a letter dated 18-8-1986 requiring that the direct recruitment quota would be filled up by recruitment as a special case from the existing strength of qualified category-ill and IV employees subject to the condition specified therein and a copy of the said letter was annexed as annexure No. C. A II It is further contended that as results were net declared, the petitioners did not acquire any right in course of participation in the selection process and as such is not entitled to any relief.
(3.) Respondent filed a supplementary counter affidavit wherein holding of oral interview was admitted but it was contended that by letter dated 18-8-1986 the Head Quarter directed that the vacancies in the post of Assistant Grade III would be filled up only from the departmental applicants and not from the outsiders and as the Central Government finances the Food Corporation of India and gives its directive from time to time, the petitioners could not be selected in violation of the said directives and, therefore, there is no question of declaring result any further.;