M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) With the consent of parties, writ petitions have been heard finally.
(2.) By these writ petitions, a challenge is made for filling of the post of Assistant Professor (General Medicine) in excess to the vacancies advertised.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that RPSC issued an advertisement on 26th November, 2010 for the various posts which includes the post of Assistant Professor (General Medicine). In all, 25 posts were advertised. 14 posts were shown for open category, whereas 3 posts each for SC and ST candidates. 5 posts were kept for OBC. The corrigendum thereafter was issued on 10th October, 2011 wherein total posts were shown to be 35 and out of which 16 posts were kept for open category, whereas six posts for SC and seven posts for ST. Six posts were kept for OBC and two for disabled category. After selection, when appointments were made, it was found to be in excess to the post advertised by the respondents for open category. The action of the respondents to give appointment to nineteen candidates against sixteen vacancies advertised for open category is illegal. It is also stated that subsequent corrigendum issued by the respondents on 1st February, 2012 was not published. The said corrigendum should not have been acted upon by the respondents, rather no reason exists to alter bifurcation of the vacancies among different categories after the corrigendum dated 10th October, 2011. In view of above, prayer made in the writ petitions be granted and accordingly the petitioners finding place in wait list be given appointment against the post meant for SC and ST candidates as per the advertisement dated 10th October, 2011. A reference of judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Rajkishore Nanda & Ors., reported in : JT 2010 (6) SC 33 has been given apart from judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukul Saikia & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in : JT 2008 (12) SC 414.;