K.KANNAN J. - (1.) THE case had been directed to be posted before this Court along with C.W.P. No.6327 of 1995. The said writ petition has been dismissed for default of non prosecution and therefore, the said decision cannot be of any assistance. The case would be required to be disposed of on its own merits.
(2.) THE petitioner has sought for relief of quashing of the notification issued on 28.02.1991 regularizing the services of private respondents who were appointed on ad hoc basis and who had completed two years of service on 31.12.1990. The relief of quashing the regularization order has been sought at the instance of the petitioner on the ground that the notification had been issued after announcing the select list on 28.04.1994 brought through a regular selection process and when the petitioner had been shown as selected. There had been a fresh selection notification which was issued on 22.01.1995 for filling up 12 posts of Opthalmic Assistants for which 100% reservation had been provided wholly in violation of settled principles of law under which 5 posts were reserved for SC and 7 posts were reserved for ESM. The challenge was on the ground that 100% reservation of posts was unconstitutional. The petitioner would contend that 21 posts of the Opthalmic Assistants were still vacant and that he should be considered for appointment. If the posts of Opthalmic Assistants had been run through ad hoc appointees and the Government had come up with a policy for regularizing the services of persons, who had fulfilled some criteria namely with reference to the number of years of service without any blemish in their records then it is essentially an issue of policy that will not be interfered with by the Court. There cannot be a writ petition to quash the policy of the Government making regularization of services. A mere preparation of select list on the basis of interview does not give any vested right for any person to be also issued with order of appointment unless the rejection of the candidature was for any oblique or illegal motive. If the petitioner was not ultimately favoured with an order of appointment after the preparation of select list by virtue of a formulation of policy by the State to regularize the ad hoc employees, the petitioner can compete for selection at an appropriate time when fresh selection is started and cannot challenge the regularization policy. The relief sought for quashing of the policy issued by the Government regularizing the private respondents who were ad hoc employees cannot, therefore, be maintained.
(3.) THE second portion of the relief claimed in the writ petition is to quash the notification issued providing for filling up of 12 posts wholly through a process of reservation. Though I would find that such a notification was not valid, I cannot find any reason to interfere in favour of the petitioner for being considered to the post of Opthalmic Assistants. The case is of the year 1996 at the instance of a person who was seeking for an appointment on the basis of the initial select list that had been issued. I have already observed that mere inclusion of a person in the select list does not give a vested right to appointment so long as the appointment to that post was not considered and filled up. If through an independent selection process some posts were notified, I cannot secure to the petitioner the benefit now at this length of time after nearly 15 years. The relief sought for in the petition has become stale and it is not possible to secure to the petitioner any relief.;