IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9290 of 2009 Avinash Kumar son of Narmdeshwar Prasad, Resident of Village & P.O. Vidyapati Nagar (Near N.C.C. Office), P.S. Saharsa & District Saharsa Versus 1. The Union Of India through Administrative Officer, Ordinance Depot, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune (Maharashtra) 2. Commandant Ayudh Depot, Talegaon Debhade, Pune (Maharastra) 3. Secretary, Defence, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi For the Petitioner :M/s Anil Kumar Mukund, Anil Kumar Sinha & Mrs. Rekha Mukund, Advocates For the Union of India :Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate CGC 10/ 20.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Storekeeper in the category of physically handicapped pursuant to advertisement dated 26.11.2005 in the Talegaon Ordinance Depot. Having become successful in the written test, interview, under letter dated 11.2.2006, Annexure-1, was called upon to produce the copies of the original educational/ technical certificates and two passport size photograph by 23.2.2006. In compliance of such instruction, petitioner produced his testimonials on 23.2.2006. In spite of filing of the copies of the original documents, petitioner could not be given appointment letter his documents were, however, forwarded to Sikanderabad for appointment as the - 2 - vacancies for which he participated in the selection test was subsequently reduced and transferred to Sikanderabad Ordinance Depot. Although the documents were transferred to Sikanderabad, but petitioner was not given appointment letter, whereafter he submitted representation dated 23.4.2008, which is contained in Annexure-2. Representation of the petitioner dated 23.4.2008, Annexure- 2 was also not considered whereafter petitioner served legal notice dated 15.11.2008 through his Advocate, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Verma. The authorities of the Talegaon Depot took cognizance of the legal notice and under letter dated 28.11.2008, Annexure-3 informed Sri Awadhesh Kumar Verma, Advocate that the vacancies of the post of Storekeeper having been reduced drastically by the Government, it is not possible to appoint the petitioner. 3. By filing the present writ petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of the letter dated 28.11.2008, Annexure-3, whereunder his Advocate was informed that the vacancies of Storekeeper having been drastically reduced, it is not possible to grant him appointment in the light of his performance in the interview held on 7.12.2005. - 3 - 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid conduct of the authorities to reduce the vacancy is highly arbitrary and the authorities were quite aware of the illegality committed by them by reducing the vacancy. In this connection, reference has been made to paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit, whereunder the authorities have stated that there being strong apprehension that denying appointment to these two selected may invite legal complication, this depot is constantly approaching the higher authorities to appoint them elsewhere. In the same counter affidavit in paragraph 21, the authorities have stated that request of the authorities of the Talegaon Depot to accommodate the petitioner elsewhere was considered but was found not feasible in view of the clause in the advertisement that vacancies notified in the advertisement does not guarantee the claim over the post which may be increased/ decreased at any stage before the appointment letter is issued. 5. To verify the aforesaid contents of the counter affidavit, paragraph 21, this Court called upon the authorities to produce the advertisement under orders dated - 4 - 26.7.2010, in compliance whereto the authorities have filed supplementary counter affidavit placing on record the copy of the advertisement dated 26.11.2005, which specifically provides that during the conduction of selection process, vacancies notified in the advertisement may be decreased or increased. 6. As there is a specific clause in the advertisement that the vacancies may be increased or decreased, in my opinion, the authorities were competent to reduce the vacancies at Talegaon Depot and on account of reduction of vacancy if the petitioner has not been given appointment, he has to only blame his ill-luck for reduction of vacancies at Talegaon Depot. 7. So far the submission that as the matter remained pending before the authorities for the period between 23.2.2006 till his request was rejected in response to the legal notice under letter dated 28.11.2008 during which time petitioner was given several offer of appointment on the post of Computer Operator under letter dated 5.10.2007 and another appointment under letter dated 30.3.2007, both contained in Annexure-5 series, but petitioner could not - 5 - avail of them as his documents remained in custody of the authorities, the petitioner should be well advised to approach the competent Civil Court for grant of compensation / damages for not letting him avail the opportunity of appointment on account of failure of the authorities to return the original documents. 8. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)