### CHALLENGE TO APPOINTMENTS EXCEEDING NOTIFIED VACANCIES IS MAINTAINABLE BY ASPIRANTS AS AGGRIEVED PERSONS.

The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued Advertisement No. 1/2016 for 82 civil service posts.

Following litigation and a Supreme Court directive, a fresh Main Examination (2016-2022) was conducted, and a merit list of 168 candidates was published on 22.11.2022.

Initially, 82 candidates were appointed as per the original advertisement. Subsequently, the State Cabinet decided on 21.02.2023 to appoint an additional 43 candidates as Sub-Deputy Collectors (SDCs) from the remaining names in the same merit list.

The petitioners, comprising both candidates who appeared in the 2016-2022 exam and other aspirants for civil service posts, challenged these 43 additional appointments, contending that filling subsequent vacancies from a concluded recruitment process without a fresh advertisement violates Articles 14 and 16.

The respondents (State and selectees) raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, arguing the petitioners lacked locus standi, were not "aggrieved persons," and had concealed material facts regarding their eligibility or participation in other exams.

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable given the challenge to the petitioners' locus standi as "aggrieved persons".

2. Whether the petitioners are estopped from challenging the recruitment process after participating in it or for non-disclosure of material facts.

3. Whether the non-joinder of all 43 appointees in one of the writ petitions is fatal to its maintainability.

An "aggrieved person" under Article 226 must be someone whose right or interest is adversely affected or jeopardized.

Authorities cannot fill more than the notified number of vacancies as it violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

The court permits hearing a matter if at least some affected parties are before the court in a representative capacity, provided the defect is curable.

Rule 27 of the MPSC (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011, regarding the recommendation of candidates not exceeding reported vacancies.

The Court reasoned that if the 43 additional posts were required to be advertised afresh—as argued by the petitioners based on the Gajanan Babulal Bansode precedent—then any eligible aspirant (including unsuccessful candidates from the previous round) has a vested legal right to compete for those future vacancies.

Any appointment made in excess of the original notification directly impinges on that right of competition.

The Court found that the petitioners had sufficiently disclosed their status in the pleadings, and any minor omissions were not material enough to warrant dismissal at the threshold.

On the issue of non-joinder in WP(C) No. 725/2023, the Court observed that since 39 out of 43 appointees were impleaded and all 43 were impleaded in the connected case (WP(C) No. 793/2023), the defect was curable and did not render the petition non-maintainable, especially as the appointments were challenged as being void ab-initio.

The Court disposed of the miscellaneous applications challenging maintainability in favor of the petitioners; the petitioners in WP(C) No. 725 of 2023 were directed to implead the remaining four appointees within two weeks and the main cases were ordered to be listed for hearing on merits.