- (1.) BY the Court.-Heard Sri Shiv Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pushpendra Singh, for respondent No. 1, Sri Amit Sthalekar, for respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3.
(2.) PETITIONER through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the revised requisition sent by High Court i.e. respondent No. 2 to the State Government on 23.4.2008 reducing the vacancies of Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2006 from 355 to 339. He has further sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-Commission to appoint the petitioner on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) against 15 seats so reduced by the respondents illegally in contravention of the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another, 2007 (2) SCC 534, as well as this Court in Writ Petition No. 51491 of 2007 (Sanjay Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 17.1.2008. Sri Pandey contended that for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) the Government in consultation with the High Court determined 355 vacancies under Rule 15 of U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "2001 Rules") which were requisitioned to the Commission for holding examination in accordance with the provisions of 2001 Rules but subsequently in order to give appointment to some other candidates pursuant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Sanjay Singh (supra) as well as this Court in Sanjay Singh (supra) it has decided to reduce the number of vacancies from 355 to 339 though in the meantime the entire recruitment process has already been completed by the Commission and, therefore, it is not open to the respondents to reduce the number of vacancies at this later stage. He also argued that once the Commission actually advertised 355 vacancies under Rule 15 of 2001 Rules it is not open to the respondents to reduce the same subsequently after the recruitment process is complete since the respondents are bound to fill in all the vacancies unless they are reduced by issuing a notification as provided under Rule 21(2) of 2001 Rules. He submitted that the number of vacancies advertised have to be filled in from the select list under Rule 20(3) unless the vacancies are varied after due notification. In the present case it is submitted that no such notification has been issued by the respondents till date and, therefore, it is not open to the Commission to publish the final select list of only 339 candidates i.e. as per the reduced vacancies instead of 355 which were advertised earlier. He further contended that the persons who have been given appointment pursuant to the directions of this Court and Apex Court are not actually entitled for such post. He thus contended that the decision to reduce vacancy from 355 to 339 is wholly arbitrary and contrary to law. He lastly contended that under Article 16(1) of the Constitution the petitioner has a fundamental right for consideration as well as appointment against the number of vacancies advertised by the authorities concerned since it amounts to denial of right of equal opportunity. Having considered the aforesaid submissions at length we, however do not find any force in the submission for the reasons given hereto.
(3.) FROM the very perusal of Rule 15 it appears that for commencing the procedure for recruitment to the service the first requirement is to determine the number of vacancies and for the said purpose the Governor in consultation with the High Court is required to give the number of vacancies which are to be filled in during the year of recruitment. The term "year of recruitment" has also been defined under Rule 4(m) which reads as under: "(m) "Year of recruitment" means a period of twelve months commencing from the first day of July of the calendar year in which the process of recruitment is initiated by the appointing authority;" It nowhere requires that after the vacancies to be filled in during the year of notification issued by the Government in consultation with the High Court or even when the vacancies are intimated to the Commission for that purpose also any notification is required to be issued. The procedure prescribed under Rule 15 is only to tentatively decide the number of vacancies which have to be filled in during the year of recruitment but it nowhere restricts the Government or this Court from revising the vacancies as determined under Rule 15 which are to be filled in during the year of recruitment. Thus the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is well established that when there is no ambiguity in the language of the statute the same has to be read as it is.;