4. On the other hand, Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate and Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Yadav and submit that initially an advertisement for 268 posts of Peon and 72 posts of Assistant GradeIII was issued and appointments were required to be made as per the reservation roster dated 04.12.2012. They would further submit that a select list of 1521 candidates was published but no waiting list was prepared. Against 268 posts of peon, 355 candidates were appointed, and against 72 posts of Assistant Grade-III, only 64 candidates were appointed. They would contend Peons were appointed in excess of the available vacancy. They would submit that complaints were made, and upon enquiry, it was found that 355 Peons were appointed against 268 vacancies and the reservation roster was not followed, therefore, appointment orders of 57 candidates were cancelled. They would further submit that after remand by this Court, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners and, after affording proper opportunity of hearing, the Collector cancelled the appointment of the petitioners and 33 other candidates. The appeals preferred by the petitioners were partly allowed, and appointments of 33 candidates were restored, whereas the petitioners’ appeals were dismissed. They would contend that during the recruitment process, 30 posts of Peon and 15 posts of Assistant Grade-III were sanctioned on 28.09.2013 but the selection committee used the select list of 1521 candidates as a reservoir for filling future vacancies. They have placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Anurag Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 8334 of 2013 and another connected matter; and Rakhi Ray & ors. vs. High Court of Delhi & ors, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 637 .
