N.W. Sambre JUDGMENT
N.W. Sambre, J.
1. Heard respective counsel at length. By consent, taken out for final disposal at the admission stage.
2. Pursuant to selection process for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees for the year 2016-2017, the petitioners' selection as wait list/reserve list candidates and right of the petitioners to claim appointment is the subject matter of the present petition.
3. According to the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 is an Autonomous Body, who is entrusted with the duty to conduct recruitment process for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees for the respondents-participating organizations. It is the claim of the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 published an advertisement dated 06/07/2015 for the recruitment of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees in lieu of the requirement of candidates registered by the respondents-participating organizations for the year 2016-2017. In view of the advertisement dated 06/07/2015, the on-line examinations were conducted on 31/10/2015 and the provisional allotment was made on 01/04/2016. According to the petitioners, in the notice dated 01/04/2016, clause No. 10 about provisional allotment provides for 10% of the vacancies reserved under each category as wait listed/reserve candidates. The petitioners then submit that if the participating organizations i.e. respondents provide vacancies during April, 2016 to March, 2017, the provisional allotment was to be carried out of the candidates from the reserve list to the said reserve members of the organization. All these petitioners claimed to be the candidates who are listed in the reserve list/wait list.
4. According to the petitioners, though there exist vacancies with the respondents-participating organizations, the respondents-participating organizations instead of filling up the posts by requisitioning candidature of petitioners who are wait listed candidates have tried to notify the said vacancies for the next year i.e. 2017-2018 and as such the interest of the petitioners are jeopardized. Amongst other, grounds raised in the petition by the petitioners are they having been selected after qualifying the recruitment process including the exams and interviews, legitimate right is created in their favour to seek appointment on the vacant post. According to them, the act on the part of the respondents amounts to denial of such legitimate rights of the petitioners to get appointment order as guaranteed under Articles 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, once the list of the candidates who are put on the reserve list was having life till 31/03/2017, it is an illegality on the part of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioners against the existing vacancies. As such, the petitioners, relying upon certain decisions have sought to canvass that appropriate directions needs to be issued to the respondents to grant them appointment on the post which are lying vacant with the respondents-participating organizations for the year 2016-2017. The petitioners have also placed on record the statistics demonstrating the vacancies which were existing with the respondents-participating organizations in the year 2016-2017 so as to demonstrate the alleged intentional act on the part of the respondents in not granting appointment in their favour.
5. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the Division Bench of this Court has already held that it is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as such the petition is not maintainable. Apart from above, according to the respondent No. 1, there are no statuto........