JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Petitioners are working as Senior Helpers/Helpers with the respondent. They claim that the next promotional post available to them is post of Trainee Technician, promotion to which post has to be effected by way of selection. Their grievance relates to the fact that while effecting promotion to the post of Trainee Technician in the year 2001 and 2002, claim of the petitioners was overlooked. Elaborating on the claim made by the petitioners, they allege that on 4.10.1999, applications were invited from the eligible Helpers/Senior Helpers to fill up 10 posts of Trainee Technicians. The Bench Fitting Test prescribed as per the promotional policy was held on 25.4.2001. Petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 qualified at the said trade test but they were not selected.
2. On 6.7.2001, the respondent invited applications to fill up 58 further vacancies. Petitioners applied and were required to undergo the trade test afresh. As per the petitioners, such of the petitioners who had qualified the trade test earlier could not be subjected to another trade test. Petitioners were subjected to another trade test on 20.5.2002. Petitioners were declared unsuccessful.
3. Stating the facts aforesaid, petitioners filed the petition, inter alia, raising the following grounds:-
a) The post of Trainee Technician is a promotional post. Feeder post being the post of Helpers/Senior Helpers. Respondent was effecting promotion to persons outside the cadre.
b) The method of conducting the trade test was totally arbitrary and unreasonable in as much as the candidates were given a piece of iron sheet and had to cut it to the stipulated size. There was no method to identify as to which sheet was cut by which candidate.
c) Petitioners having qualified the trade test once could not be subjected to a second trade test and further that the subsequent vacancies ought to have been filled up on the basis of the panel prepared for the first trade test as the panel was valid for a period of one year.
d) Ignoring the validity of the panel for one year, second trade test was held in a period of less than one year.
e) Ineligible persons were promoted to the post of Trainee Technician. Ineligible persons being outside the cadre of Helpers/Senior Helpers.
4. During the pendency of the writ petition, an application, being CM No.12191/2002 was filed alleging that 31 more candidates were going to be appointed on the basis of the selection effected pursuant to the second trade test held on 20.5.2002. Prayer was made to restrain the respondent to fill up said 31 vacancies. Another CM being CM 307/2003 was filed seeking stay of circular dated 10.12.2002 wherein 63 vacancies were notified to be filled up.
5. Response of the respondent is that petitioners are under a misconception that the post of Trainee Technician is a promotional post for which the post of Helpers/Senior Helpers is a feeder post. It is stated that the cadre of Helpers is a separate cadre where persons proceed from Helper to Senior Helper, Head Helper, Senior Head Helper and then Chief Helper. The post of Trainee Technician is a technical post in the Engineering Department. Appointments to the said posts are made on the basis of direct recruitment from outside as well as from amongst all employees, in which opportunity is given to eligible Helpers who have worked in Engineering and Ground Support Department to compete for selection.
6. On merits, it is alleged that pursuant to the recruitment process commenced in the year 1999, petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 alone qualified at the Bench Fitting Test held on 5th / 6th May, 2001 but could not finally make it. In July, 2001, recruitment to the post of Trainee Technician was further processed for posts which became vacant. It is stated that the Bench Fitting Test held in the month of May, 2001 pertained to the vacancies which were notified to be filled up in the year 1999. It is averred that process of selection consists of taking a trade test followed by an interview. A person who clears trade test once does not mean that the person cannot be subjected to a trade test for a second time.
7. I may note that the counter affidavit filed by the respondent deals with the averments made in the writ petition and not the applications filed from time to time.
8. Rules pertaining to the post of Trainee Technician as notified by the respondent would revel that 25% posts of Trainee Technician are reserved to be filled up from suitable cleaners qualifying the standard of tests as prescribed. The remaining vacancies have to be filled by open recruitment where the internal candidates can also apply.
9. Grievance of the petitioners that only Helpers and Senior Helpers can be appointed as Trainee Technicians is not in conformity with the applicable policy, and therefore, grievance pertaining to appointment made qua persons who are not Helpers/Senior Helpers has to be rejected.
10. For being appointed to the post of Trainee Technician, apart from the educational qualifications prescribed, the candidates have to obtain a minimum of 50% marks in a Bench Fitting Test, test in the field where the post has to be filled and a written test.
11. One of the grievance of the petitioners was that the trade test held was a farce. It is for the management to decide as to in what manner it would like to subject a person to be appointed against a technical post. The notified policy of the respondent pertaining to appointment to the post of Trainee Technician would reveal that what has to be the content of the trade test stands notified therein. What tools have to be used have been stipulated in the policy.
12. Petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 qualified the trade test. Petitioner No.5 never even took the trade test. It cannot, therefore, be said that the trade test was a farce.
13. On what basis do the petitioners claim that once they qualified at a trade test, they cannot be subjected to a trade test while effecting appointments subsequently?
14. If clearance of a trade test was an eligibility norm, petitioners may have had a case. A person who becomes eligible on clearing a departmental test, may attain eligibility for future as well. But here the position is slightly different. At each selection, candidates are subjected to a trade test and other tests. Selection is effected on the basis of aggregate of the marks obtained at the two tests. Since the trade test does not relate to an eligibility condition, in my opinion, at every selection process whenever vacancies have to be filled up, the candidate must offer himself to the trade test.
15. Though, in the writ petition there has been no challenge to the 31 appointments effected pursuant to the selection process which was initiated on 6.7.2001 for 58 vacancies which were notified to be filled up and out of which 50 vacancies were filled up, counsel for the petitioners contended that vide CM 12191/2002, grievance was laid before this court that 31 more candidates could not be appointed as it would be a denial of the legitimate claim of the petitioners. Counsel contended that it was impermissible in law to fill up vacancies in excess of the notified vacancies. Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. State of J & K and Ors.
16. Counsel for the respondent urged that by way of a Civil Misc. Application, scope of the writ petition could not be expanded. Respondent urged the court not even to consider the said plea of the petitioners.
17. Decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by counsel for the petitioner would reveal that recruitment was notified to fill up 11 vacancies. A merit list of 20 candidates was prepared. It was held that the moment 11 vacancies are filled in from the merit list, the list gets exhausted, or if during the span of one year from the date of publication of such list all the 11 vacancies are not filled, the moment the year is over, the list gets exhausted. Relying upon the said observations, counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent had notified 58 vacancies to be filled up vide circular dated 6.7.2001. 50 vacancies were filled up and, therefore, based on the same circular and the same selection process 31 further candidates could not be selected. I am afraid, counsel for the petitioner ignores the following pertinent observations of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal’s case:-
“In either event, thereafter, if further vacancies are to be filled in or remaining vacancies are to be filled in after one year, a fresh process of recruitment is to be initiated giving a fresh opportunity to all the open market candidates to compete.”
18. There is yet another reason why the principle of law, that it is impermissible to effect appointment to more posts other than the one notified to be filled up, cannot be applied to the present case is that where vacancies are filled up, the ratio of calling candidates is normally 1:5 i.e. calling 5 times the number of candidates as compared to the number of posts to be filled. If number of vacancies filled up is increased by making appointments from the existing panel, it would mean a denial of opportunity to some candidates to be considered for appointment. On facts of the present case, it is clear that the respondent did not limit the candidates who had applied in any ratio in relation to the number of vacancies advertised. All those who had applied pursuant to the circular dated 6.7.2001 were subjected to the test.
19. There is an additional reason to reject the said contention of the petitioners. The reason being that these 31 persons have not been imp leaded as respondents. There is even no prayer made to quash their appointments.
20. On the subject, before parting, I may note that petitioners themselves took a contrary stand on this issue. As noted above in para 4, during the pendency of the writ petition an application, being CM No.12191/2002 was filed by the petitioners alleging that 31 more candidates were going to be appointed on the basis of the selection effected pursuant to the trade test held on 20.5.2002. It was stated in the application that this was done to deny the petitioners relief. It was stated in the application that if the respondent was not restrained from filling up the vacancies, writ petition would be rendered infructuous because the respondent would claim that no vacancies exist to be filled up. Averments of the petitioners in the said application would reveal that the petitioners laid a claim to be appointed in respect of the said 31 vacancies. Thus, on the one hand, petitioner’s claim that no appointment could be made in respect of the said 31 vacancies and at the same breath plead that they have a right to be appointed against the said 31 vacancies.
21. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.