Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 646 (MP)

Rukhadi v. M. P. Public Service Commission

2007-06-26

S.K.SETH

body2007
ORDER 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been wrongly eliminated and not selected for the State Civil Services. Facts relevant for the disposal of the case are as under. 2. In order to clear the backlog of posts belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, a special recruitment drive was undertaken and advertisement inviting applications was issued by respondent No.1. The said advertisement published in the "Rojgar Aur Nirman" issue dated 11.9.2003. Since the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe, she submitted an application. The petitioner successfully sailed through the process of preliminary examination and her name was included in the result declared by respondent No.1, M.P. Public Service Commission on 11.7.2005. It is pertinent to point out that it was mentioned in the result that the selection for the main examination was provision in respect of all candidates. Thereafter, Public Service Commission issued instructions to fill up the forms for the main examination of State Civil Services, 2003. The said instructions were published for general information in the "Rojgar Aur Nirman" issue dated 2.9.2004. It was clearly mentioned in the said instructions that the requisite certificate should be issued by the SDO, Revenue or higher authorities and so far as married women are concerned, their certificate must bear the name of father. It is not disputed that the petitioner had submitted the certificate to claim the benefit of Scheduled Tribe and in the said certificate, instead of her father's name, her husband's name is mentioned. The petitioner cleared the main examination, but for want of requisite certificate, she was issued a provisional interview-call letter to face the Interview Board on 13.9.2005. A perusal of the interview call letter also reveals that the petitioner was directed to produce the requisite certificate at the time of interview. Since, the petitioner was not having the requisite certificate as required vide Annexure R-1, therefore, on the date of interview, she submitted an application that she will furnish the requisite certificate within 15 days. Thereafter, as no certificate was furnished by the petitioner, respondent No.1 declared the final result on 6.11.2005 and forwarded the same to the State Government for doing the needful. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it was not in the hands of the petitioner to obtain a certificate. Thereafter, as no certificate was furnished by the petitioner, respondent No.1 declared the final result on 6.11.2005 and forwarded the same to the State Government for doing the needful. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it was not in the hands of the petitioner to obtain a certificate. As soon as the certificate was issued, she submitted the same to the respondent No.1 and, therefore, her name ought to have been included in the final select-list prepared by respondent No.1. 4. The respondent No.1 has justified the exclusion of the petitioner for want of requisite certificate. It was submitted that the petitioner obtained the certificate on 14.11.2005, the day on which she filed the present writ petition and submitted the certificate to the respondent No. 1 on 25.11.2005 much after the final result was declared by the respondent No.1. It was submitted that the respondent No.1 issued the advertisement on the basis of requisition received from the State Government and Annexure R -1 was also issued for general information. It was submitted that many instances have come to light where women belonging to forward section of the society marries a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/OBC and on the basis of marriage, claims the benefit of reservation. It is in this background, it was mentioned that in case of married women, certificate must show the name of the father and his caste/tribe. Thus, according to the respondents, petitioner having failed to produce the requisite certificate, was eliminated from the process of recruitment in view of the condition that mere acceptance of the application form does not mean that a particular candidate has been found eligible in all respects. Thus, according to the respondents, there is no merit and substance in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court is clearly of the view that the petitioner cannot take advantage of her own lethargy. The respondents wanted the certificate in a particular form from a married woman and to this effect, they had issued the instructions which were published in the "Rojgar Aur Nirman" on 2.9.2004 so the petitioner cannot claim ignorance that she was not aware. She was again reminded when the interview-call letter was received by her that she is required to submit the requisite certificate. She was again reminded when the interview-call letter was received by her that she is required to submit the requisite certificate. It seems that despite this, no efforts were made to obtain requisite certificate prior to the date of the interview. Though respondent No. 1 would not have been justified in not allowing the petitioner to face the Interview Board, however, if the petitioner was interviewed, that would not give indefeasible right to the petitioner to get herself selected. It is also clear that the present petition was filed only after the petitioner obtained the requisite certificate which was forwarded to the respondent No.1 on 25.11.2005. The respondent No.1 is the main recruiting agency to fill up the posts in the Government service. It has to work as per the schedule for each recruitment and it cannot wait for indefinitely for a particular candidate, otherwise there would be utter chaos and would lead to collapse of the system. In the present case, as has been pointed hereinabove, the respondents issued instructions to the candidates on 2.9.2005 and thus, all the candidates who were qualified in the preliminary exams were aware of the kind of certificate they were expected to furnish along with the application for the main examination. It is not a case of change of rules in the middle of the game. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit and substance in the writ petition. Same is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.