JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants. The Appellants are aggrieved against the order dated 21.01.20099 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2665/2008 by which the Petitioner's petition was found to have no merit. However, it has been observed by the learned Single Judge that if the Respondent authorities proposes to issue fresh advertisement for filling up the vacant posts, then they may also consider the desirability of making appropriate provision for relaxation of age in respect of those candidates who had applied for and were found successful in the written tests pursuant to the earlier advertisement of 2005, if such candidates file fresh applications, if any.
(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the written test was conducted and the Petitioners were declared successful in that written examination which was conducted on 07.05.2006. Thereafter, a typing test was also held from 26.03.2007 to 29.03.2007. The Petitioners appeared in the typing test but thereafter, final result was not declared by the Respondent authority. However, instead of declaring the result and giving appointment to the selected candidates the Respondents published an advertisement declaring the selection process in question cancelled and fresh applications were invited for the posts.
(3.) Accordingly to the learned Counsel for the Appellants, once the selection process has started and there was no fault on the part of the candidates and there was no irregularity in conducting the examination and even if the contention of the Respondent is accepted then before conducting the typing test the selection committee should have been constituted which have not been constituted in terms of any provision of law then from that point of time only the selection process should have been started afresh. Substantially meaning thereby that at the most in factual situation if selection committee was not constituted for holding the typing test that typing test should have been taken afresh but entire selection process should not have been cancelled.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.