- (1.) The delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The applications u/s 5 of the Limitation Act are allowed. The defects are ruled.
(2.) By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge while considering the case has directed to the respondents to consider to fill those post of PTI Grade-III which were not occupied by the candidates who found place in the select list to the post of PTI Grade-II.
(3.) In our view, learned Single Judge while considering the case of the petitioners observed as under:- "It is clarified that left out posts should not mean the posts which occurred from a candidate who initially joined the post of PTI Gr III and thereafter resigned or left the services for some reason but would be considered against those posts on which a selected candidate did not join. The wait list candidate get right of appointment against the post when a candidate did not join. It does not remain to be at the discretion of the government. The last objection is in reference to subsequent selection initiated by the non-petitioners. The subsequent selection has no effect on the prayer made by the petitioners and even to the grievance raised herein. It is not only for the reason that till 16.12.2014 non-petitioners had issued select list after its revision thus finality to the selection in question was not made till 16.12.2014, rather, even on 14.12.2014 revision of result was provisional thus finality to the list would be made in future. For the next selection, advertisement was issued in September, 2013 thus it was for the posts occurred after the selection initiated in the year 2011 i.e. selection in question. The subsequent selection is thus for the vacancies after the advertisement dated 14.12.2011. Hence, subsequent selection cannot have effect on the claim made by the petitioners herein. It is not a case of the State Government that the posts which could not be filled pursuant to the selection of the year 2011 were added in the subsequent selection though theory of merger was argued but cannot be accepted. In view of above, none of the objections raised by learned Additional Advocate General can be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion made above. As an outcome, all the writ petitions are allowed with direction to the respondents to fill those posts of PTI Gr III, which are not occupied by the candidates found place in the select list to the post of PTI Gr II also. The direction would be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appointment on the left out posts, as explained in the judgment, would be made strictly in order of merit and considering different categories for which recruitment has been made. Since all the petitioners were lower in merit to the candidates given appointment, they will have no other claim which includes seniority etc from the date of appointment of meritorious candidates.";