Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 25 (MP)

Badrivishal Gupta v. State of M. P.

2005-01-04

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2005
ORDER A. K. Shrivastava, J. 1. All the abovementioned four writ petitions are being decided by a common order since a common question is involved in all these petitions. 2. In order to recruit candidates to the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer, 60 posts were advertised. The incomplete advertisement is annexed as Annexure-A-1. After holding requisite examination and interview, a select list was prepared and admittedly the names of petitioners do not find place in the said list though their names do find place in supplementary list. The name of petitioner Badri Vishal Gupta is at Serial No. 17 in the supplementary list and names of petitioners Mahendrapal Gangwar, Sanat Kumar Paroha and Kumari Pushpalata Sahu are at Serial Nos. 12, 14 and 13 in the said supplementary list. 3. The contention of Shri Nilesh Kotecha, Learned Counsel for petitioner is that vide Annexure-A-2 dated 30th May, 1994 the Public Service Commission (Respondent No. 2) intimated petitioner Badri Vishal Gupta that his name is in supplementary list and he was directed to correspond with concerning department directly. It has been further contended by the Learned Counsel that as many as 110 posts are lying vacant and, therefore, petitioners whose names are in the supplementary list can be adjusted and they may be selected and given appointment. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Union of India vs. Ishwar Singh Khatri, 1992 SCC L&S 999 and Dr. Uma Kant vs. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain and others, AIR 1991 SC 2272 . 4. Per contra, Shri V. P. Nema, learned Government Advocate and Shri Hemant Shrivastava, Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, by inviting my attention to Rule 17(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') has contended that the life of the select list shall be maximum 18 months from the date of its preparation and, therefore, after lapse of 18 months the petitioners whose names are appearing in the supplementary list, do not have any right to ask for selection and appointment. 5. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. It is no more in dispute that 60 posts were advertised to recruit suitable candidates to the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer. 5. After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. It is no more in dispute that 60 posts were advertised to recruit suitable candidates to the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer. It is also no more in dispute that 57 candidates were selected and, therefore, the names of petitioners could not have been considered for the simple reason that their names stand at Serial Nos. 17, 12, 14 and 13 in the supplementary list and thus they could not have been selected and appointed. 7. This important fact cannot be marginalised and blinked away that the life of the select list and supplementary list came to an end after lapse of 18 months and, therefore, petitioners' prayer for their selection and appointment cannot be taken into consideration. The decisions of Ishwar Singh Khatri (supra) and Dr. Uma Kant (supra) relied on by the Learned Counsel for petitioners are tangentially off the point. In the case of Ishwar Singh Khatri (supra) the Apex Court specifically held in para 4 that the selected candidates ordinarily will have a right to appointment against vacancies notified or available till the select list is prepared. They in any event cannot have a right against future vacancies. It be seen that, the select list which was prepared was exhausted in toto and for this reason also the case of Ishwar Singh Khatri is not applicable in the present factual scenario and for the same reasons the decision of Dr. Uma Kant (supra) is also not applicable. 8. Rule 17(4) of the Rules is quite relevant to the point in hand and it would be apposite to rewrite the said rule which reads thus :- 17. Select list.- (1)........... (2)............ (3)............ Uma Kant (supra) is also not applicable. 8. Rule 17(4) of the Rules is quite relevant to the point in hand and it would be apposite to rewrite the said rule which reads thus :- 17. Select list.- (1)........... (2)............ (3)............ (4) The select list shall ordinarily be in force until it is reviewed or revised in accordance with sub-rule (4) of rule 15, but its validity shall not be extended beyond a total period of 18 months from the date of its preparation : Provided that in the event of grave lapse in the conduct or performance of duties on the part of any person included in the list, a special review of the select list may be made at the instance of the Government and the Commission may if it thinks fit, remove the name of such person from the select list. This fact has not been disputed by the Learned Counsel for petitioners that the period of 18 months as prescribed in the above-said rule has already expired and if that is the position, in my opinion, petitioners do not have any right to ask for their selection and appointment. Merely because at the time of filing of petitions 110 posts were lying vacant, would not mean that it would create any right in petitioners for the simple reason that these posts were not advertised. In the case of Srikant Tripathi vs. State of U. P., (2001) 10 SCC 237 the Apex Court has held that a wait listed candidate has no vested right to be appointed, except when a selected candidate does not join and the waiting list is still operative. Other decisions on the field are Surinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1997) 8 SCC 488 and Sanjoy Bhattacharjee vs. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 283 . In all these cases the Apex Court considered the right of wait listed candidates and held that the inclusion of candidates in merit list in excess of the notified vacancies, is not justified and waiting list candidates have no right to appointment. Thus, on the basis of these decisions of the Supreme Court it can safely be said that petitioners who are wait listed are not having any vested right to ask for appointment. 9. Thus, on the basis of these decisions of the Supreme Court it can safely be said that petitioners who are wait listed are not having any vested right to ask for appointment. 9. In view of above, these four writ petitions are found to be devoid of any substance and the same are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.