D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Assistant Wasil Vaki Navis in Talisil Amipshahar on 1.7.1989 and had worked till 30.7.1993 as is apparent from Annexures-1 and 2. Selection for filling up of vacant post of Assistant Wasil Vaki Navls (hereinafter called as the A.W.V.N.) was held through a selection committee by respondent No. 2. The petitioner appeared in the selection and having been found successful in the written examination was called for interview by the selection committee which prepared a panel of the successful candidates wherein the petitioner's name was placed at 51. No. 11. Though the persons placed at SI. Nos. 1 to 10 and at SI. No. 12 were given appointment in the post of A.W.V.N. in different Tahslls but the petitioner has been overlooked in the matter of appointment. It is alleged that there are 10 posts of A.W.V.N. still vacant in the office of respondent No. 2 and its subordinates. Despite such vacancy, instead of giving appointment, the respondents are going to fill up those vacancies through open advertisement without absorbing the candidates selected by the selection committee, hence this writ petition.
(2.) Mr. Y. D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though there is no rule governing the selection or recruitment of A.W.V.N. but by reason of different pronouncements of this Court, a rule similar to those for recruitment of seasonal collection Amin is required to be followed, i.e., 50% of the posts should be filled up from among the seasonal A.W.V.N. He relies on the decision in the case of Veerendra Singh v. Collector, Kanpur Dehat and others, 1995 AWC 397, in support of his contention.
(3.) Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner cannot claim benefit of the said judgment inasmuch as the learned single Judge had in fact indirectly ventured to intrude upon the field of legislation which the Court cannot do.;