W.P.(C)No.28530/2014 is filed by certain man- candidates questioning the delay on the part of the second and third respondents in publishing the final selection list of the successful candidates. Similarly, W.P.(C)No.29215/2014 is filed by the women-candidates seeking the same relief. Since both the writ petitions are filed by similarly placed persons raising the same issue against the same set of respondents, this Court disposes of both the writ petitions through this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners, 123 in all, submitted that they all faced four stages of selection process and were looking forward to having published the final selection list. At that juncture, citing the reason that certain candidates, who underwent similar selection process pursuant to the notification in the year 2011, filed W.P.(C)No.2577/2013 and batch, wherein an interim direction was given staying the selection process, the second and third respondents did not publish the final selection list.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though initially an interim direction was given, later it was modified authorising the second and third respondents to proceed with the selection process. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that eventually the proceedings initiated by the candidates of the year 2011 concluded in a common judgment dated 30.10.2014, rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1516/2014, filed by some of the petitioners herein and W.A.No.1433/2014, filed by the second and third respondents along with other entities of the State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the observations of the learned Division Bench, which are as follows:
“The mere fact that some backlog vacancies were also included in the selection of 2013-
14 does not in any manner vitiate the subsequent selection. Present is a case where, it is relevant to note that with regard to subsequent notice dated 15.12.2012 there was no prayer in the writ petition for quashing the said notice or consequent selection.
We are satisfied that learned Single Judge committed error in directing appointment to be given to petitioners, who could not be included in the panel on account of reduction of vacancies. The said direction thus cannot be sustained. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we allow the writ appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the writ petition is dismissed.”
5. According to the learned counsel, in the light of the definitive pronouncement by a learned Division Bench of this Court in the manner extracted above, there is no impediment for the second and third respondents to publish the final selection list. It is further submitted that any delay in this regard will visit the career prospects of the petitioners very adversely, because in all other States the selection process had been completed long back and most of the successful candidates are undergoing training.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the light of the judgment referred to above, the respondents do not have any objection to proceed further and publish the final selection list, taking all other consequential steps in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents, especially in the light of the judgment dated 30.10.2014 of the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1433/2014 and 1516/2014, this Court disposes of both the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to expedite the process of publishing the final selection list and taking all other consequential steps, so as not to cause any prejudice to the career prospects of the petitioners.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv