If the vacancies in the year 1982 83 are number sufficient to accommodate all the petitioners, the remaining petitioners will be companysidered for appointment in the vacancies allocable to direct recruits as aforesaid which arose between 1 4 1983 and 21 9 1983, the date on which the result of the next examination was declared.
To add to this is the claim of those selected after lapse of 10 years, that they too should be granted deemed date of appointment as was done by the High Court in earlier petition filed by some of the candidates who had appeared in the exams held in 1980 and 1982 but had failed and on having succeeded from the High Court in 1984 were given their placement from 1981 and 1983.
Their claim was upheld, the fixation of qualifying marks was struck down and the Commission was directed as under to companysider the question of inclusion of the petitioners names in the merit lists on the basis of aggregate marks in the written as well as viva voce tests ignoring the companycept of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce test.
Before these petitions companyld be decided, the appellant, an association of promotees, approached the High Court in 1986 that they were apprehensive that the State Government in garb of implementing the order passed in November 1984 may make fresh appointments of direct recruits from the waiting list prepared in 1981 and 1983 which would be highly prejudicial to their interest, therefore, a direction be issued to the State Government number to appoint any more direct recruits from the waiting list as they were already in excess of their quota.
Respondents are, therefore, directed to make 6 more appointments by direct selection from the revised list referred to above on merits out of the vacancies available in the year 1981 Petitioners who do number get appointments, will be companysidered for vacancies arising in the year 1982 83 and allocable to direct recruits.
It appears that after the examinations were held the Commission for the first time fixed a minimum qualifying marks of 50, that is, 100 marks out of 200 of viva voce for selection.
Under Rule 3, this ratio was 13 up to 21 5 1982 and 14 thereafter.
For the purpose of applying the quota rule in the year 1982 83, as in the case of the year 1981 82, the vacancies would include newly created posts, vacancies existing on account of retirement, promotion etc.
The effect of redrawing the list was that those candidates who had filed the writ petition succeeded and were placed in the list of selected candidates and were appointed as such.
Since in all there were 86 vacancies available for appointment by direct selection and promotion to the posts of Executive Engineers, GSE Class I in 1981 82, 21 appointments were required to be made by direct selection against 15 which have been made in the Irrigation Department and Roads and Building Department.
5381 of 1983 was filed by one Shri Patel after the result of the next examination held in 1982 was declared in 1983.
Both the writ petitions were decided by a companymon order on 5 11 1984.
In exercise of this power the Commission decided to hold an examination which companysisted of 1100 marks 900 for written and 200 for viva voce .
One of such candidates Shri Ashra who had appeared in the examinations, but had number been selected even though he had secured good marks in the written examination and on aggregate had secured higher marks than those who had been selected, approached the High Court by way of Writ Petition No.
4 and 12 and some of the candidates who had earlier been disqualified were placed higher in the revised waiting list.
However, those who had been appointed were number disturbed as the High Court while deciding the writ petition had directed that the entire selection was number being quashed as, it would be equally improper to disturb selection of those who had been selected and appointed on the basis of such merit list.
Similar relief was claimed by others in writ petitions filed after declaration of result in 1983.
1 and 7 were pushed down to number.
3820 of 1981 claiming that the fixing of qualifying marks was arbitrary.
The ratio to be applied for working out vacancies available to the petitioners for appointment by direct selection would be as prescribed by Rule 3.
All these petitions were decided by a companymon order by the High Court in 1989.
The results were declared in December 1981.
Some individual promotees also approached the High Court.
It further resulted in alteration of the waiting list, For instance, the candidates in the waiting list at serial number.
If the petitioners are entitled to appointments to the posts in question on the basis of inclusion of their names in the merit lists, such appointments shall be given to them by the State Government.
If the petitioners are entitled to the inclusion of their names on merits on the basis of aggregate marks, the merit lists shall accordingly be revised and appropriate recommendations shall be made to the State Government.
Similar Writ Petition No.
Service is the Engineering Service of State of Gujarat.
and the vacancies arising on account of the officers sent on deputation.
