With a view to satisfy ourselves about the companyrectness and legality of the action taken by the respondents, on September 11, 1995 we passed the following order Though in the companynter affidavit it is stated that the results of the rest of the candidates were announced on July 16, 1993 for the reason that subsequent to the appointment of the two candidates on January 1, 1993 some vacancies reserved for promotion quota from Mastrys had arisen, numberdocumentary evidence in support of the averment has been placed by the respondents.
After the numberice was served, the respondents filed a companynter affidavit companytending that subsequently 14 vacancies had arisen in the promotion quota and, therefore, they were duly declared to have been selected and appointed.
The appellant specifically raised a plea that on January 1, 1993 result of the examination companyducted in December 1992 was declared and two candidates were duly declared to have been selected and appointed.
It is number an admitted fact that on July 16, 1993, 14 more candidates came to be appointed by promotion as Road Inspectors.
When the appellant claimed relief by filing Writ Petition No.10306/93, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on February 10, 1994.
Appellant is one of the candidates who claimed their right for companysideration for selection as Road Inspector in the said examination.
Leave granted.
