Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 795 (MP)

Padma Jatav v. State of M. P.

2009-07-09

S.C.SHARMA

body2009
ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not calling her for the interview in respect of the State Service main Examination, 2003. The contention of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the MPPSC), on 11th September, 2003 inviting applications for filling up the back-log vacancies in respect of the scheduled caste and the scheduled tribe candidates. The petitioner is a member of the scheduled caste category. The petitioner as per the advertisement has submitted her application form and total number of vacancies advertised were 429. The total number of vacancies reserved for the scheduled caste category were 88 and 26 posts were reserved under the schedule caste women category. The petitioner has further stated that she was declared successful in the preliminary examination and permitted to appear in the main examination. The contention of the petitioner is that the result was declared on 5th July, 2005 selecting the names of the persons who have cleared the State Service Main Examination 2003 (Backlog). Thereafter interview call letters were issued and under the male category, to the candidates who have secured 1133 marks and under the women category call letters were issued to the women candidates who have secured 1126 marks. The contention of the petitioner is that large number of women candidates have secured more marks than the marks secured by the persons who have been called for interview under the male category and, therefore, the respondents by segregating the quota at the stage of interview have deprived a large number of women candidates from participation in the process of interview. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in case other women candidates who were having more marks than the male category candidates. were called for interview, the other women candidates like the petitioner would have been entitled for an opportunity of participation in the process of interview and, therefore, the action of the respondents in depriving the identically placed persons like the petitioner from participation in the interview process is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 which provides 30% reservation quota for the women candidates. 3. 3. The respondent-MPPSC has filed a reply and it has been stated in the reply that the petitioner was declared as successful in the preliminary examination and, she was also permitted to appear in the main examination. The respondents have further stated that the last candidate called for the interview under the male category candidates has received 1133 marks and the petitioner has received only 1097 marks and therefore, she was not called for interview under the male category candidates. In such circumstances, she was not eligible under the women quota to be called for interview. The respondents have further stated that under the women reserved quota, 26 vacancies were required to be filled up and therefore, 79 women candidates belonging to the schedule caste were called for interview and all of them were having more than 1126 marks or marks above 1126. Therefore, the petitioner who has received 1096 marks was not rightly called for the interview. The learned counsel for the MPPSC has produced the entire record before this Court relating to the process of selection. As per the record produced by the counsel for the MPPSC as many as 71 women candidates have secured 1133 or more than 1133 marks in the main examination. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the MPPSC is that the male candidates who have secured 1133 marks or more than 1133 marks have been called for interview under the male category as per the list so drawn at the time of interview and against 26 vacancies reserved for women candidates, 79 women candidates were called for interview as per the merit list and the last such person under the women category called for interview has received 1126 marks as per the merit list. The petitioner has received only 1096 marks and, therefore, she was rightly not called for the interview under the women category. The learned counsel for the MPPSC has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has argued before this Court that the vacancies have already been filled up as the selection process complete in the year 2005-06 and, therefore, in case any adverse order is passed by this Court, the same will result in a very difficult situation and large number of reserved category candidates who are already in job since 2006 will face the problem. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the present case it is not in dispute that an advertisement was issued for filling up the back-log vacancies reserved for the Schedule Caste and the Schedule Tribe candidates. As per the advertisement, the total number of vacancies notified were 88 for the schedule caste and out of which 26 were reserved under the schedule caste women category candidates. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has submitted an application for participation against the vacancies advertised for the year 2003 and she was declared as successful in the main examination. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the main examination and she has secured 1097 marks in the main examination. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent-MPPSC has stated before this Court that the MPPSC has called candidates for the interview in the ratio of 1:3 and out of the 88 vacancies, as 62 vacancies were under the open category (SC), 187 candidates were called for the interview. Similarly, against 26 vacancies available under the reserved (SC) women category, 79 candidates were called for interview. 9. It is also an admitted fact as admitted in the return by the MPPSC that the last person called for interview under the male category has received 1133 marks and the last candidate called for interview under the women category has received 1126.marks. After verifying the material produced before this Court, it is established that as many as 71 candidates belonging to the women category were having 1133 marks or more than 1133 marks. In case, those women candidates were called for the interview, then the persons with lower marks under the women category would have got an opportunity to appear in the process of interview. The MPPSC while segregating the quota (male and female) and at the time of final selection has created a situation wherein the women category candidates have been confined only to 30% of the total vacancies. If the analogy adopted by the MPPSC is accepted, it would mean that the percentage of women category candidates will never exceed 30%, meaning thereby, even though they have received more marks than the male category candidates, they will not be adjusted against the reserved vacancies and they shall be confined only to 30% of the vacancies available. 10. If the analogy adopted by the MPPSC is accepted, it would mean that the percentage of women category candidates will never exceed 30%, meaning thereby, even though they have received more marks than the male category candidates, they will not be adjusted against the reserved vacancies and they shall be confined only to 30% of the vacancies available. 10. The learned counsel for the MPPSC has relied upon a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hemraj Rana v. State of M.P. and another [ 2006(III) MPWN 110 = 2006(3) MPHT 477 ], and has argued that the MPPSC can very well segregate the vacancies as per sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewa (Anusuchit Jatiyon Ausuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhde Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 and if any person belonging to any of the reserved categories get selected on the basis of merit in an open competition with the general candidates, he shall be adjusted against the vacancies meant for general candidates. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench has dealt with a situation at the preliminary examination stage and not at the stage of main selection process. In those circumstances, the Division Bench has held that the procedure adopted by the MPPSC of not complying the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 4 at the preliminary examination stage is not violative of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. The Division Bench in paragraphs 4,5,6, 7 and 8 has held as under : "Mr. Hemant Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, submitted that sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 will apply at the time of final selection of candidates and not to the preliminary examinations conducted for screening the candidates for the main examination through the preliminary examination. He further submitted that normally by such preliminary examination, candidates numbering 15 times the number of posts advertised are called for main examination on the basis of performance in the preliminary examination and following this principle the respondent No.2 has called 7907 candidates for 542 posts for the main examination on the basis of the marks secured by them in the preliminary examination. On a query by the Court as to how many of these candidates who have been called for the main examination on the basis of their marks in the preliminary examination belonging to OBC category, Mr. Shrivastva submitted that as many as 1365 candidates belonging to OBC category have been called for main examination. Sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 on which great reliance has been placed by Mr. Thakur, is quoted herein below: "4. Fixation of percentage for reservation of posts and standard of evaluation. - xxx xxx xxx (4) If a person belonging to any of the categories mentioned in subsection (2) gets selected on the basis of merit in an open competition with general candidates, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for such category under sub-section (2)." The language of the said sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 makes it clear that if a person belonging to any of the reserved categories gets 'selected' on the basis of merit in an open competition with the general candidates, he shall be adjusted against the vacancies meant for general candidates. The word 'selected' clearly indicates that sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 will apply only at the time of final selection of candidates and not at the time of preliminary examination. In the decision in Rajshri Tiwari v. State of M.P. and others (supra), cited by Mr. Thakur, this Court has not held that sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 will also apply to a preliminary examination for the purpose of screening candidates for the main Examination. In the said decision, this Court has only held that the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 and sub-clause (ii) of clause (8) of rule 5 of the Rules of 2001 made under the Adhiniyam of 1994 are in consonance with the interpretation of Article 16(4) of the Constitution given by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [ AIR 1993 SC 477 ], that if some members belonging to reserved categories re-selected in the open competition on the basis of their merit, they will not count against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes but shall be treated as open category candidates. In absence of any specific provision either in the Adhiniyam of 1994 or the Rules of 2001 made thereunder, providing that the principle in sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 will equally apply to preliminary examinations conducted for the purpose of screening candidates for the main examination, the MPPSC would be well within its direction to decide as to what would be the procedure which should be followed in the preliminary examination for screening candidates for the main examination. So long as such procedure followed by the MPPSC is not contrary to Article 16(4) of the Constitution, this Court cannot hold that the procedure followed by the MPPSC is ultra vires. It appears from the statement produced before us by Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the MPPSC that as many as 1365 candidates belonging to the OBC category have been called for the main examination on the basis of their performance in the preliminary examination. Assuming that all the 281 posts meant for the general candidates are filled up by 281 out of these 1365 candidates belonging to OBC category, there still remain 1185 candidates belonging to GBC category who would compete for 91 posts reserved for OBC candidates. Obviously, the appellant who has not come within the aforesaid 1365 candidates of the OBC category called for the main examination because of his lower marks, cannot have a grievance that he should have been called separately on the basis of his performance in the preliminary examination for these 91 vacancies reserved for the GBC category candidates. We are, thus, of the view that the provisions of Article 16(4) of the Constitution are also not, in any way, violated by the procedure followed by the MPPSC." 11. In the present case, the petitioner was not called for interview in the main examination which is certainly a stage of final selection of a candidate and certainly not a stage of preliminary examination and, therefore, keeping in view the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Hemraj Rana (supra), the respondents 'could not have deprived the women candidates to compete along with the other male category candidates-in the process of interview. The respondents could not have segregated the quota at the time of interview as has been done in the present matter. The respondents could not have segregated the quota at the time of interview as has been done in the present matter. Not only this, the MPPSC as per the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1977 has to provide for 30% reservation on all posts in the services under the State in favour of the women candidates at the stage of direct recruitment. 12. Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 reads as under: "Reservation of posts for women. -- Notwithstanding anything contained in any service Rules, there shall be reserved thirty percent of all posts in the service under the State in favour of women at the stage of direct recruitment and the said reservation shall be horizontal and compartment wise. Explanation: For the purpose of this rule "horizontal and compartment wise reservation" means reservation in each category, namely, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and General" The aforesaid statutory provision makes it clear that the reservation for the women category is horizontal and compartment wise. 13. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta and others v. State of U.P. and others [ (1995)5 SCC 173 ], has held in paragraphs 7, 15, 17 and 19 as under: "At the outset, we may mention a glaring illegality which has unfortunately not been raised in these writ petitions but is self-evident from the decisions of this Court. Under the revised notification dated 17.12.1994, three per cent of the seats have been reserved for candidates belonging to hill area and another three per cent in favour of candidates belonging to Uttaranchal areas. These two reservations along with the reservations in favour of physically handicapped, children of deceased/disabled soldiers and dependents of freedom fighters are treated as horizontal reservations. In other words, the reservations in favour of hill areas and Uttaranchal areas are understood and treated as reservations relatable to Article 15(1) of the Constitution and not as reservations in favour of "socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or fort be Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" within the meaning of Article 15(4) of the Constitution. In other words, the reservations in favour of hill areas and Uttaranchal areas are understood and treated as reservations relatable to Article 15(1) of the Constitution and not as reservations in favour of "socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or fort be Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" within the meaning of Article 15(4) of the Constitution. It has been held by this Court in State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon that the reservation of seats in favour of candidates belonging to hill areas and Uttarakhand areas are reservations within the meaning of Article 15(4) of the Constitution, i.e., they are reservations in favour of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. This Court found that "the State has established that the people in hill and Uttarakhand areas are socially and educationally backward classes of citizens". It, therefore, follows that a separate horizontal reservation of six per cent of the seats in favour of candidates from hill areas and Uttaranchal apart from and in addition to twenty-seven per cent reservation in favour of other backward class candidates is clearly illegal. Though this contention has not been specifically raised in these writ petitions, we must yet take notice of this circumstance while making the appropriate directions in these matters. It is indeed surprising that the State of Uttar Pradesh which is a party to the above decision has failed to bear it in mind the said decision has also been referred to approvingly in Indra Sawhney. The State of Uttar Pradesh shall keep this in mind for future selections as also in respect of those which may be now under way and make necessary corrections. On a careful consideration of the revised notification of 17.12.1994 and the aforementioned corrigendum issued by the Lucknow University, we are of the opinion that in view of the ambiguous language employed therein, it is not possible to give a definite answer to the question whether the horizontal reservations are overall reservations or compartmentalised reservations. We may explain these two expressions. Where the seats reserved for horizontal reservations are proportionately divided among the vertical (social) reservations and are not intertransferable, it would be a case of comprtmentalised reservations. We may explain these two expressions. Where the seats reserved for horizontal reservations are proportionately divided among the vertical (social) reservations and are not intertransferable, it would be a case of comprtmentalised reservations. We may illustrate what we say: Take this very case; out of the total 746 seats, 112 seats (representing fifteen per cent) should be filled by special reservation candidates at the same time, the social reservation in favour of Other Backward Classes is 27% which means 201 seats for OBCs; if the 112 special reservation seats are also divided proportionately as between OC, OBC, SC and ST, 30 seats would be allocated to the OBC category; in other words, thirty special category students can be accommodated in the OBC category; but say only ten special reservation candidates belonging to OBC are available, then these ten candidates will, of course, be allocated among OBC quota but the remaining twenty seats cannot be transferred to OC category (they will be available for OBC candidates only) or for that matter, to any other category; this would be so whether requisite. number of special reservation candidates (56 out of 373) are available in OC category or not; the special reservation would be a watertight compartment in each of the vertical reservation classes (OC, OBC, se and ST). As against this, what happens in the overall reservation is that while allocating the special reservation students to their respective social reservation category, the overall reservation in favour of special reservation categories has yet to be honoured. This means that in the above illustration, the twenty remaining seats would be transferred to OC category which means that the number of special reservation candidates in OC category would be 56+20=76. Further, if no special reservation candidate belonging to SC and ST is available then the proportionate number of seats meant for special reservation candidates in SC and ST also get transferred to OC category. The result would be that 102 special reservation candidates have to be accommodated in the OC category to complete their quota of 112. The converse may also happen, which will prejudice the candidates in the reserved categories. It is, of course, obvious that the inter se quota between OC, OBC, SC and ST will not be altered. The result would be that 102 special reservation candidates have to be accommodated in the OC category to complete their quota of 112. The converse may also happen, which will prejudice the candidates in the reserved categories. It is, of course, obvious that the inter se quota between OC, OBC, SC and ST will not be altered. It would have been better -- and the respondents may note this for their future guidance -- that while providing horizontal reservations, they should specify whether the horizontal reservation is a compartmental one or an overall one. As a matter of fact, it may Rot be totally correct to presume that the Uttar Pradesh Government was not aware of this distinction between "overall horizontal reservation": and "compartmentalised horizontal reservation", since it appears from the judgment in Swati Gupta that in the first notification issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 17.5.1994, the thirty per cent reservation for ladies was split up into each of the other reservations. For example, it was stated against backward classes that the percentage of reservation in their favour was twenty-seven per cent but at the same time it was stated that thirty per cent of those seats were reserved for ladies. Against every vertical reservation, a similar provision was made, which meant that the said horizontal reservation in favour of ladies was to be a "compartmentalised horizontal reservation". We are of the opinion that in the interest of avoiding any complications and intractable problems, it would be better that in future the horizontal reservations are compartmentalised in the sense explained above. In other words, the notification inviting applications should itself state not only the percentage of horizontal reservation(s) but should also specify the number of seats reserved for them in each of the social reservation categories, viz., ST, SC, OBC and OC. If this is not done there is always a possibility of one or the other vertical reservation category suffering prejudice as has happened in this case. As pointed out hereinabove, 110 seats out of 112 seats meant for special reservations have been taken away from the OC category alone -- and none from the OBC or for that matter, from SC or ST. It can well happen the other way also in a given year. In this connection, we must reiterate what this Court has said in Indra Sawhney. It can well happen the other way also in a given year. In this connection, we must reiterate what this Court has said in Indra Sawhney. While holding that what may be called "horizontal reservation" can be provided under clause (1) of Article 16, the majority judgment administered the following caution in para 744 : "But at the same time, one thing is clear. It is in very exceptional situation -- and not for all and sundry reasons -- that any further reservations of whatever kind, should be provided under clause (1). In such cases, the State has to satisfy, if called upon that making such a provision was necessary (in public interest) to redress the specific situation. The very presence of clause (4) should act as a damper upon the propensity to create further classes deserving special treatment. The reason for saying so is very simple. If reservations are made both under clause (4) as well as under clause (1), the vacancies available for free competition as well as reserved categories would be correspondingly whittled down and that is not a reasonable thing to do." Though the said observations were made with reference to clauses (1) and (4) of Article 16, the same apply with equal force to clauses (1) and (4) of Article 15 as well. In this case, the reservation of fifteen per cent of seats for special categories was on very high side. As pointed out above, two categories out of them representing six per cent out of fifteen per cent are really reservations under Article 15(4), wrongly treated as reservations under Article 15(1). Even otherwise, the special reservation would be nine per cent. The respondents would be well advised to keep in mind the admonition administered by this Court and ensure that the special reservations (hotizontal reservations) are kept at the minimum. 14. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others [ (2007)8 SCC 785 ], has held as in paragraphs 7 and 9 as under: "A provision for women made under Article 15(3), in respect of employment, is a special reservation as contrasted from the social reservation under Article 16(4). 14. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others [ (2007)8 SCC 785 ], has held as in paragraphs 7 and 9 as under: "A provision for women made under Article 15(3), in respect of employment, is a special reservation as contrasted from the social reservation under Article 16(4). The method of implementing special reservation, which is a horizontal reservation, cutting across vertical reservations, was explained by this Court in Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., thus: "The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merits; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas i.e. SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizontal resen1ations is already satisfied -- in case it is an overall horizontal reservation - no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalised horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adjustment/accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical reservations. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen per cent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied)." (Emphasis supplied) The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and DBC under Article 16(4) are "vertical reservations". Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are "horizontal reservations". Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. (Vide Indra Sawhney, R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul). But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of "Scheduled Caste women". If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus, women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. Let us illustrate by an example: If 19 posts are reserved for SCs (of which the quota for women is four), 19 SC candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candidates. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC woman candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC woman candidate. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC woman candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC woman candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two woman candidates, then the next two SC woman candidates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain four woman SC candidates. (But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four woman candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess woman candidates on the ground that "SC women" have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four.)" 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta and others (supra), and Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), it is crystal clear that the MPPSC has erroneously adopted the process of segregation of women candidates at the time of interview and has deprived a large number of women candidates who have obtained 1133 or more than 1133 marks in the main examination. It was obligatory on the part of the MPPSC to call all such women candidates for interview who have received 1133 or more than 1133 marks in the main examination. 16. In the present case, the main examination in question has taken place in the year 2005 and as many as 429 vacancies were advertised under the special drive to recruit the schedule caste and the schedule tribe category candidates. The vacancies have been filled up by the State of Madhya Pradesh by virtue of the aforesaid process of selection adopted by the MPPSC and the persons so appointed are continuing in service. They have served the State for more than 4 years and none of them have been impleaded as respondents in the present case and, therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid, there appears to be no justification in disturbing the appointments already made by the MPPSC in the matter. 17. They have served the State for more than 4 years and none of them have been impleaded as respondents in the present case and, therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid, there appears to be no justification in disturbing the appointments already made by the MPPSC in the matter. 17. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has informed this Court that the petitioner has already been selected as a Civil Judge and, therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer a representation if she so desires claiming appointment for any posts so advertised in the year 2005 and on receiving such an application form the petitioner, the MPPSC shall process the matter relating to the petitioner only and pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with law. 18. Resultantly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (a) The petitioner in case she is still claiming appointment to the posts advertised as per the advertisement dated 5th July, 2005, shall submit a representation to the MPPSC within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (b) The respondent-MPPSC shall thereafter pass appropriate orders in respect of conducting the process of interview for the appointment in question only in respect of the petitioner. (c) The respondents after the process of interview shall pass appropriate orders in respect of the petitioner to grant appointment to the petitioner in case she is found eligible to any of the posts advertised by virtue of her merit in the competitive examination in which she has participated. The petitioner shall also be entitled for notional seniority from the date other candidates have been granted appointment and other benefits, however, the petitioner shall not be entitled for the back wages.