M. Sayappa Vs. District Judge, District Court, Kurnool and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - appointment - a.p. ministerial judicial service rules and last grade service rules - petitioner a selected candidate of judicial ministerial services - instead of appointing selected candidates other candidates appointed on ad hoc basis by district judge - writ petition filed against appointment - high court found conflict between vacancy and roaster points - district judge ordered to rectify roaster points - after rectification appointment of selected candidates ordered as regular appointment. - a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar pass books act, 1971. section 5(3) & a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar passbooks rules, 1989, rules 5 & 19: : [g.s. singhvi, c.j., & g.v. seethapathy, c.v. nagarjuna reddy, jj] amendment of record of rights procedure held, proviso to section 5(1) and (3) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of rules of natural justice i.e., audi alterem partem. these provisions contemplate issue of notice to persons likely to be affected by action/decision of mandal revenue officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in record of rights. similarly, a notice is required to be issued to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by amendment. a copy of amendment and notice is also required to be published in prescribed manner. the publication of notice in prescribed manner is in addition to notice, which is required to be given in writing to all persons whose names are entered in record of rights and who are interested in or affected by amendment and also to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by amendment. the publication of a copy of amendment and notice is only supplemental and not the alternative mode of giving notice to persons whose names are entered in the record of rights. if legislature thought that publication of a general notice in form viii will be sufficient compliance of rules of natural justice, then there was no occasion to incorporate a specific requirement of issuing written notice to persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment. the requirement of issuing written notice to such persons clearly negates the argument that publication of notice in form vii is sufficient. thus the language of form viii in which notice is required to be published cannot control the interpretation of substantive provision contained in section 5((3), which casts a duty on recording authority to issue notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or aggrieved by the proposed amendment. - 4. the committee of the hon'ble judges in its next meeting held on 4th december, 1997 on noticing the discrepancy with regard to the notified vacancies and the vacancies arrived at as per the fixation of roster points done in accordance with their directions, resolved to fill up the existing vacancies on regular basis to the extent notified and the remaining notified as well as non-notified vacancies on ad hoc basis till they are notified and filled up as per rules making it clear to the candidates that their appointments are temporary and purely and on ad hoc basis. 5. before we advert to the facts of each writ petition post-wise, we would like to elucidate and clarify the decisions taken by the committee of hon'ble judges in the meetings held on 13-11-1997 and 4-12-1997. 6. a roster register shall be opened now and the existing staff shall be fixed at appropriate points as per their social status. in situations like this, where the register of communal roster was not opened earlier and the prescribed procedure was not followed, we are inclined to endorse the course of action adopted by the committee of hon'ble judges. in fact, in the resolution of the committee of ilon'ble judges recorded in the meeting held on 4-12-1997, there was no such direction to include promoted staff as well. however, we would like to observe that if an additional vacancy has since become available, the bc-d (w) candidate can be continued on ad hoc basis and be afforded an opportunity to participate in the next selection. 33119 of 1998: this writ petition filed by one of the oc candidates appointed on ad hoc basis should fail for the reason that there is no vacancy of oc (g) available as per the roster points worked out after appointing four candidates higher in rank in oc (g) category.1. these writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders of the district judge, kurnool, appointing some of the writ petitioners on ad hoc basis instead of on regular basis and not appointing some of the writ petitioners to any posts though selected in pursuance of the recruitment notification dated 1-10-1996.2. the district judge, kurnool, issued the notification dated 1-10-1996 calling for applications to fill up the posts in a.p. judicial ministerial service, a.p. general subordinate service and a.p. last grade service in the unit of the district judge, kurnool. the said notification was issued notifying the vacancies as per the rules of reservation and the guidelines issued by high court. the district judge, kurnool conducted a written test to the eligible candidates after shortlisting the applications. the district selection committee consisting of the district judge, addl. district judge and the principal sub-judge conducted vivavoce to the candidates qualified in the written test. the selection committee prepared merit list on the basis of the marks awarded to the candidates in the written test and viva voce put together to each category of posts. he also prepared group-wise merit list (i.e. for ocs, scs, sts, bcs and women). the district judge prepared the list of selected candidates in the ratio of 1:5 against each vacancy notified in all the categories. the district judge forwarded the said list to the high court for approval together with relevant information concerning the selected candidates.3. the committee of the hon'ble judges of this court considered the said panel in its meeting held on 13-11-1997 and passed the following resolution:'considered. in the course of discussion with the unit head, it is found that roster registers have not been maintained till now. it is resolved that maintenance of roster registers is mandatory and the unit head be requested to open roster registers for all categories of posts and submit the same to high court by 4th december, 1997 duly fixing the existing staff against the respective roster points.'in pursuance of the said direction of the committee, the district judge, kurnool prepared the roster register for all the existing staff and fixed up roster points for the vacancies available on the date of notification. consequently, there was variation between the vacancies notified for various categories of posts and the vacancies identified as per the roster register prepared in pursuance of the directions of the committee.4. the committee of the hon'ble judges in its next meeting held on 4th december, 1997 on noticing the discrepancy with regard to the notified vacancies and the vacancies arrived at as per the fixation of roster points done in accordance with their directions, resolved to fill up the existing vacancies on regular basis to the extent notified and the remaining notified as well as non-notified vacancies on ad hoc basis till they are notified and filled up as per rules making it clear to the candidates that their appointments are temporary and purely and on ad hoc basis. it was resolved to appoint the candidates who have touched the roster points on regular basis and other candidates who have not touched the roster points on ad hoc basis. the district judge, kurnool was directed to issue posting orders accordingly. the district judge, kurnool was further directed to notify the ad hoc appointed posts in the next notification. the candidates who have been appointed on ad hoc basis arc some of the petitioners herein and they are challenging their appointment on ad hoc basis instead of on regular basis and some other petitioners are challenging the action ofthe respondents in not offering them appointments despite their selection.5. before we advert to the facts of each writ petition post-wise, we would like to elucidate and clarify the decisions taken by the committee of hon'ble judges in the meetings held on 13-11-1997 and 4-12-1997.6. a roster register shall be opened now and the existing staff shall be fixed at appropriate points as per their social status. thereafter, the roster points for the vacancies available on the date of notification shall be fixed up post-wise for the purpose of giving effect to the rule of reservation. if by doing so, the notified vacancy for a particular category viz., sc, st, bc, oc and women tallies with the roster point arrived at for that particular vacancy, the selected candidates as per the merit ranking should be fitted against those roster points and appointed on regular basis. however, if the notified vacancies do not tally with the vacancies identified in accordance with the roster points prepared under the directions of the committee or in other words, there is a discrepancy between the vacancies ear-marked for particular category viz., oc, bc, sc, st & women as per the notification and the vacancies arrived at as per the fixation of roster points in the manner directed by the committee, the selected candidates will only be appointed on ad hoc basis to the extent clear vacancies are available pending finalisation of next recruitment. to take an illustration, two vacancies were notified for filling up the posts of examiners. one was earmarked for oc (woman) and the other for sc (woman). however, as per the roster points arrived at by fixing the existing staff at appropriate places, oc(w) does not find place. it should have been earmarked for sc(g). as far as reservation for sc(w) is concerned, it does not change whether we go by the recruitment notification or by the exercise done in accordance with the directions of the committee. hence, the selected candidate in sc(w) category has been offered regular appointment. but the candidate selected against oc(w) category has been offered ad hoc appointment only against a vacancy which should have been filled up by sc(g) candidate. as sc (general) was not notified originally, no one was appointed to that post. that vacancy will have to be made earmarked for sc(g) in the next recruitment. the above clarification brings out the exact nature of the decision taken by the committee and its implications.7. while hearing the writ petitions initially, we found that the roster points have been fixed for the existing staff by including the promotees also. as such a step was not warranted either to give effect to the directions of the committee of hon'ble judges or for properly giving effect to the rule of reservation, we directed the respondents to re-do the exercise of fixing up the roster points for the existing staff excluding the promoted staff. accordingly, the process of identification of roster points was taken up afresh and there was a change in the vacancy position arrived at category-wise. as such change was likely to affect certain candidates who were appointed on regular basis. pursuant to the approval given by the committee, we directed the impleadment of such candidates as party-respondents. some of the impleaded respondents are represented by the counsel.8. the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the number of posts/vacancies to be filled up by various social groups having been notified in implementation of the rule of reservation, it is not open to the appointing authority to deviate from the notification and improvise a different methodology for working out the reservation in each category. according to the petitioners, the high court on the administrative side ought to have cleared the appointments of selected candidates as per the merit ranking in accordance with the recommendations of the district judge (appointment authority) formulated in terms of the recruitment notification. in effect, the counsel for the petitioners assail the decision taken by the committee of hon'ble judges of high court which according to them had an adverse effect on the prospects of appointment of the petitioners.9. on an anxious consideration of the entire issue, we are unable to concur with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. it is trite to say that mere empanelment or selection does not confer a vested right for appointment, more so when the panel as prepared by the district judge was not approved by the high court on administrative side. the petitioners cannot claim to be appointed despite wrong identification of vacancies for various social groups. we are of the view that the decision taken by the committee on the whole is reasonable and meant to remedy the situation arising out of non-maintenance of roster for a long time so as to ensure that the rule of reservation is observed in its true spirit. as and when recruitment took place, the appointments should have been made in accordance with the cycle of reservation as laid down in a.p. state and subordinate service rules. it is not in dispute that the a.p. ministerial judicial service rules and the last grade service rules adopt the rules of reservation contained in the general rules framed by the governor under article 309. for the first time while inviting the applications, the vacancies available for each category of social group have, no doubt been specified. the rule of reservation is thus followed afresh for this particular recruitment. in doing so, the appointing authority had overlooked the fact lliat roster points cannot be identified afresh for every recruitment without reference to the previous recruitment/recruitments. in order to properly identify the roster points and the vacancies to be allotted to each group on the basis of communal roster, appropriate positions have to be assigned to the staff already recruited and working. when the vacancies with reference to the roster points as prescribed in the rules are to be identified for the first time, the overall representation of various social groups should be legitimately kept in view, otherwise, it would lead to imbalances and inequities. fitment of candidates already appointed and working against appropriate roster points should be a simultaneous exercise for the purpose of identifying the vacancies to be reserved for different categories of social groups for the present recruitment. true, even this exercise of fixing existing staff against roster points and thereafter identifying the roster points for the staff to be newly appointed may not yield scientific results. there may be candidates who would have retired or resigned. nevertheless, a reasonable and pragmatic solution has to be devised in order to give effect to the principle and policy of reservation. in situations like this, where the register of communal roster was not opened earlier and the prescribed procedure was not followed, we are inclined to endorse the course of action adopted by the committee of hon'ble judges. but, as already pointed out, while giving effect to the decision of the committee, an error has been committed by juxtaposing the promoted staff also against appropriate roster points. in fact, in the resolution of the committee of ilon'ble judges recorded in the meeting held on 4-12-1997, there was no such direction to include promoted staff as well. but, the roster points arrived at and the group-wise vacancies identified on that basis were approved by the committee of the high court and implemented by the appointing authority. this has led to legitimate grievance on the part of some of the petitioners. we are therefore, inclined to rectify the mistake and give necessary relief to the eligible petitioners. in doing so, we shall be broadly guided by the principle accepted by the committee of hon'ble judges that there should be no regular appointment to a non-notified vacancy subject however to one qualification. if a vacancy or more than one vacancy is notified for any particular social group and on the correct assessment of the roster points, more vacancies have to be allocated to that particular group and successful candidates are available in that group, there is no reason why they should be denied appointment against the actual vacancies available. the mistake in working out the vacancies for a particular group need not be perpetrated unless of course any prejudice results to the applicants or the candidates selected. for instance, if one sc(g) vacancy is notified, but, on the proper assessment of the vacancies in accordance with the exercise done pursuant to the court's directions two vacancies are available for sc(g) and two qualified sc(g) candidates are available, we are of the view that both of them should be offered regular appointment notwithstanding that only one vacancy was notified for scs. it is a different matter if no vacancy had been notified for scs at all. in such a case, we agree with the hon'blc judges of the committee that there should be no regular appointment of sc candidate, merely because the vacancy was subsequently identified as a result of fresh assessment. in such an event, there is every possibility of prejudice in the sense that in the absence of reservation for scs not being notified at all, the eligible candidates may not be inclined to submit their applications. but, that is not the case where the vacancies are found to be more than what were notified for a particular category. it is true, as laid down by the supreme court in p. ma/kiidran v. slate of karnataka, a candidate applying for the post pursuant to an advertisement gets a right to be considered for the post in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the existing recruitment rules. the operation of this rule does not in any way place an embargo against the absorption of more number of successful candidates against the vacancies which are available for the particular group on the date of notification itself though, by mistake the vacancies which were notified less. in deviating from the strict terms of the recruitment notification to this limited extent, it would not in any way cause prejudice to any applicant or candidate and there will be no denial of the constitutional guarantee enshrined in article 16 of the constitution. on the other hand, such a course of action would promote justice by affording employment to the eligible and successful candidates who were denied their due share of reservation by virtue of wrong identification of vacancies.10. in the light of exercise undertaken for fixing up the roster points by excluding the promoted candidates, and in the light of our view in regard to adjnstment of candidates available in excess of notified vacancies, we proceed to consider the facts in individual writ petitions post wise and see how far the petitioners would be entitled to relief.junior assistants :11. the petitioners in writ petition nos.4344 of 1998 and 6527 of 1998 are the candidates who applied for the notified posts of junior assistants (ldcs) and who have not been appointed either on regular or ad hoc basis. the notified vacancies for junior assistants are as under :oc-6(1w)sc-3(1w)bc-a-2bc-b-1bc-d-1total1312. though 13 vacancies were notified, by the time the selection process was over, it transpired that the vacancies dwindled on account of absorption of staff working in special ii class magistrate's court against existing vacancies. as a result, only five vacancies were ultimately available for appointment of direct recruits in the cadre of junior assistants (ldcs). as per the roster points arrived at pursuant to the directions of the committee of hon'ble judges (including the promoted staff), the position is as follows :oc(w)-1sc(w)-1sc(g)-2bc-d(w)-1accordingly, appointments were offered on regular basis to five candidates i.e., one oc(w) candidate, two sc(g) candidates, one sc(w) candidate and one bc-d(w) candidate. they are impleaded as parties in the two writ petitions. however, the position of vacancies reserved for various groups has changed as a result of fresh exercise undertaken pursuant to our directions by exclusing the promoted staff. after such exercise, the position of vacancies as per the roster is as follows :oc(g)-2oc(w)- 1bc-a-2st- 113. thus, except one oc(w) candidale by namely sanjeeva kumari who secured highest marks, others are not eligible for appointment on regular basis. but, on account of wrong fixation of roster points, 2 sc (g), 1 sc (w) and 1 bc-d (w) candidates were given appointments on regular basis, apart from the oc (w) candidate.14. petitioner in wp no.6527 of 1998 is a oc candidate. he secured 1st rank amongs oc (g) candidates. but, he was not offered appointment either on regular or ad hoc basis, because no vacancy was available for oc (g) as per the exercise done pursuant to the directions of the committee of hon'ble judges. but, as per the re-assessment of roster points in accordance with the court's direction, there are, in fact, two vacancies available for oc(g) group. the petitioner in wp no.6527 of 1998 who secured top marks should therefore, get appointment against that vacancy on regular basis, subject to usual conditions. accordingly, writ petition no.6527 of 1998 is allowed. in order to appoint the petitioner, the appointment of one of the ineligible candidates should be invalidated. two sc(g) and one sc(w) candidates apart from bc(d) woman candidate were irregularly appointed though the vacancies were not available to them as per the roster points identified. the scheduled caste (w) candidate has got least marks amongst them. she is respondent no.6 in wp no.6527 of 1998. in her place, the petitioner has to be appointed on regular basis by cancelling the regular appointment of the said sc(w) candidate. however, sc(w) candidate (respondent no.6) can be continued on ad hoc basis, if an additional vacancy is now available and she should be given opportunity to participate in the next selection as and when it takes place. accordingly, we allow the writ petition no.6527 of 1998, subject to the above observations.15. the petitioner in wp no.4344 of 1998 belongs to bc-a category. though he secured first rank, he was not appointed obviously because no vacancy was identified for bc-a candidate as per the exercise done pursuant to the directions of the committee of hon'ble judges. but, as already noticed, one vacancy for bc-a is in fact available as per ihe roster points fixed on the basis of fresh exercise undertaken in accordance with our directions. hence, bc-d woman candidate who is impleaded as respondent no.5 in writ petition no.4344 of 1998 should give way to the petitioner who belongs to bc-a category. we therefore direct the cancellation of regular appointment of respondent no.5 and direct the district judge to offer appointment to the petitioner in wp no.4344 of 1998 on regular basis subject to usual conditions. accordingly, wp no.4344 of 1998 is allowed. however, we would like to observe that if an additional vacancy has since become available, the bc-d (w) candidate can be continued on ad hoc basis and be afforded an opportunity to participate in the next selection. accordingly, we allow wp no.4344 of 1998, subject to the above observations.16. the net result of the above disposal will be as follows :the oc(w) candidate by name sanjeeva kitmari who has been appointed on regular basis will continue to be so. in the place of bc-d(w) candidate (respondent no.5), the petitioner in vp no.4344 of 1998 who belongs to bc-a category will get regular appointment. in the place of sc(w) candidate (respondent no.6), the petitioner in wp no.6527 of 1998 who is oc candidate will get regular appointment. there remain two candidates who are sc{g) appointed on regular basis. they are respondents 3 and 4 in the two writ petitions (impleaded respondents). these appointments are irregular because as per the reservations roster prepared pursuant to the directions of the committee of hon'ble judges as modified in the light of the directions given by us, there is no vacancy at all for sc(g) out of the five vacancies now available. one vacancy should have been earmarked to schedule tribe candidate and another vacancy should have been made available to oc(g) candidate. however, eligible st candidate is available. moreover, st vacancy has not been notified at all. therefore, the appropriate direction should be to carry forward the vacancy of st and to notify it as a vacancy reserved for sts during the next recruitment as per sub-rule 2(h) of rule 22 of a.p. general and sub-ordinate service rules. in the meanwhile, the candidate who has secured lesser marks amongst two sc(g) candidates i.e., 4th respondent should be treated as ad hoc appointee and his appointment will be regularised only in case he is selected in the course of future recruitment.17. then, coming to one more sc(g) candidate who has got highest marks amongsthe scs (respondent no.4 in both the writ petitions), we are inclined to direct that his appointment need not be disturbed inasmuch as no oc candidate other than the petitioner in writ petition no.6527 of 1998 has come forward to claim the relief. if so, no doubt, sc(g) candidate (respondent no.4) will be occupying the vacancy which is otherwise due to oc(g). we feel that in the next recruitment, the excess in sc(g) category to the extent of one vacancy should be removed and it be made available to oc(g) candidate. accordingly, as and when sc(g) vacancy arises in future, one such vacancy should be earmarked for oc(g) candidate. these directions, we do hope, will subserve the ends of justice without unduly disturbing the appointments already made.steno-typists:wp nos.22234, 24548, 27013, 27367, 28394 and 33119 of 1998 and 3832 of 1999 18. the vacancies for each group by identifying the roster points after excluding the promotees (as per the directions of the committee of hon'ble judges as modified by the directions given by us) are as follows :oc(o)-4oc(w)-2sc(g)-2sc(w)-1st(w)-1bc(c)- 1bc-d(w)-1total1219. appointments on regular basis were given to 3 oc candidates including one woman and two sc candidates including one woman. ad hoc appointments were given to seven candidates i.e., 2 scs, 2 sts, out of whom one is woman and 3 bcs - a, c and d.20. petitioners in wp nos.24548, 27013, 33119 of 1998 and wp no.3832 of 1999 are oc candidates who are appointed on ad hoc basis. the petitioner in wp no.22234 of 1998 is a oc (woman) candidate who has not been appointed so far even on ad hoc basis for want of vacancy for oc (w) as per the first exercise done. her name is kept in waiting list in oc (w) category. petitioner in wp no.27367 of 1998 is a sc(g) candidate who has been appointed on ad hoc basis. petitioner in wp no.28394 of 1998 is sc(w) candidate, appointed on ad hoc basis. in view of the roster points worked out as per the directions of the court to the extent they tally with the notified vacancies, the petitioners in wp nos.27013, 24548 of 1998, wp no.3832 of 1999 and the petitioner in wp no.22234 of 1998 (oc (w) candidate) will have to be appointed on regular basis instead of on ad hoc basis, subject to usual conditions. accordingly, we direct and allow the said writ petitions.wpno.33119 of 1998:this writ petition filed by one of the oc candidates appointed on ad hoc basis should fail for the reason that there is no vacancy of oc (g) available as per the roster points worked out after appointing four candidates higher in rank in oc (g) category. hence, this w.p. is dismissed.wp no.27367 of j998:this wp is filed by sc candidate who was appointed on ad hoc basis. as per the roster points worked out on the basis of court's directions, two vacancies were available for sc (g). however, as per the notification, only one vacancy for sc (g) was notified. against that vacancy, a candidate higher in rank by name martin luther was appointed on regular basis and the petitioner was given ad hoc appointment only. the petitioner should get regular appointment on usual conditions. accordingly, wp no.27367 of 1998 is allowed.wp no.28394 of 1998 :this writ petition is filed by a scheduled caste (woman) candidate. there is only one vacancy for sc (w) either according to the recruitment notification or according to the vacancies identified as per the directions of the court. against that vacancy, one jyoihi sasikala who got higher rank than the petitioner, was offered regular appointment on the principle accepted by us. we cannot say that there was any illegality in not appointing the petitioner on regular basis. the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.typists:wp no. 33140 of 1998:the petitioner-ch. satyamma is a bc-a group candidate and she secured first rank amongst bc-a candidates. however, she was appointed on ad hoc basis in view of the fact that as per the roster points identified in the first instance (including the promoted staff), there was no reservation for bc-a group though it was notified. but, in the light of the second exercise undertaken pursuant to the directions of this court, the vacancy in bc-a category is available. we direct that the petitioner should be offered appointment on regular basis as against that vacancy subject to usual conditions. accordingly, we allow the writ petition.examiners of conies :wp no.4369 of 1998:the writ petitioner who is a oc(w) candidate claims appointment on the basis that she is a physically handicapped person and one out of two vacancies notified should have been reserved for physically handicapped persons. one vacancy of oc(w) and one sc(w) vacancy were notified. it transpired that there was actually no vacancy for oc(w) category as per the roster points arrived at in accordance with the committe's directions. hence, one oc(woman) candidate who has got higher marks than the petitioner was appointed only on ad hoc basis.21. rule 12 of apjms rules enjoins that there is no reservation for physically handicapped persons. moreover, the petitioner has challenged the notification long after it was issued, that too after participating in selection. hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. the writ petition is dismissed.record assistants :wp nos.4523 of 1998 and 24398 of 1998 :the petitioners are oc(g) and oc(w) candidates respectively. out of five vacancies notified, two were earmarked for oc(g) and one for oc(w). two oc(g) candidates and one oc(g) candidate and one oc(w) candidate were selected and were given appointments on regular basis as the vacancies notified tallied with the vacancies identified as per the directions of the committee of hon'ble judges. however, on further exercise pursuant to the directions of the court, it transpired that two oc(g) vacancies were available against roster points 5 and 9. but, no oc(w) vacancy was available. the petitioner in wp no.24398 of 1998 belonging to oc(g) group was appointed on ad hoc basis. he claims appointment on regular basis. those who were appointed on regular basis got higher ranking than the petitioners in the two writ petitions. the petitioner in wp no.4523 of 1998 has secured 3rd rank in oc(w) category. hence, the petitioner cannot have legitimate grievance. their writ petitions are therefore dismissed.22. as the selection and appointment of oc(w) candidate on regular basis has not been challenged by any one, there is no need to disturb the oc(w) who is already appointed, though she was irregularly appointed to a vacancy of oc(w) which is not available. in the next recruitment, the excess given to oc(w) should be adjusted by allocating the vacancy to the group which would have been otherwise eligible to get.process servers :wpnos.6315. 18852. 23011. 22965 of 1998 and 1897 of 1999:petitioner in wp no.6315 of 1998 is sc candidate, there are two petitioners in wp no. 18852 of 1998 who are bc-a candidate. petitioners in wp nos.23011 and 22965 of 1998 are bc-d candidates.23. though 29 vacancies were notified, the actual vacancies are only 26, three being anticipated vacancies. by the time the selection process was over, the vacancies dwindled because of absorption of the staff of spl.ii class magistrate's court. hence, only 26 vacancies remain.24. the sc candidate-petitioner in wp no.6315 of 1998 has got 5th rank. although five vacancies were notified for scs, only four vacancies were arrived at as per the directions of the committee of hon'ble judges and as per the second exercise done, three vacancies were identified for sc(g) and one vacancy for sc(w), the petitioner cannot therefore make out any grievance. wp is liable to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed.25. as regards wp no.18852 of 1998, though two vacancies were notified for bc-a candidates, actually on the basis of roster points identified, no vacancies were available for bc-a candidates, either according to the first or second exercise done. hence, they were not appointed though they secured first and second ranks in bc-a category. the petitioners have no right to be appointed and could have no cause for complaint the writ petition is dismissed.26. petitioners in wp nos.23011 of 1998, 22965 of 1998 and wp no.1897 of 1999 are bc-d candidates who have got 2nd, 5th and 4th ranks respectively in that group. only one bc-d vacancy was notified. the candidate who got higher marks was appointed on regular basis. as per the roster points identified pursuant to the directions of the court, there are four vacancies for bc-d, but they were not notified. hence, they were appointed only on ad hoc basis. having regard to the view expressed by us supra that if more vacancies what were notified are actually available for a particular reserved group, there is no bar to appoint the successful candidates in that group to fill in the balance vacancies arrived at on the basis of reappraisal of vacancies, the petitioners in wp nos.23011 of 1998 and 1897 of 1999 should get regular appointment subject to usual conditions. sri k.y. krishna who secured third rank in bc-d group and who is not a petitioner is also entitled for regular appointment subject to usual conditions. accordingly, wp nos.23011 of 1998 and 1897 of 1998 are allowed. however, the petitioner in wp no.22965 of 1998 has got 5th rank and there is no vacancy available for him. hence, wp no.22965 of 1998 is dismissed. we make no order as to costs in all the writ petitions.