The high court in December 2012, after quashing a State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) order, had asked the state to redraw a fresh merit list of selected candidates to fill up 'unreserved' posts which were diverted to 'reserved' category candidates.
However, when the state did not act upon it, a contempt petition was filed against the Home Secretary in the High Court.
More than 100 general candidates then approached the SAT challenging the recruitment process. They also alleged that the general candidates are deprived of some 16 per cent of unreserved posts for a faulty decision of the state.
In September 2007, the SAT invalidated the recruitment process but allowed those recruited in excess of quota to continue on such posts as ad hoc appointees until their regularisation is made against future 'reserved' vacancies.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
