Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1227 (MP)

Vinod Kumar Mishra v. State of M. P.

2012-11-29

RAJENDRA MENON

body2012
Judgment None appears for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, even though notices by registered post acknowledgement due have been sent more than 60 days back. The dispute in this writ petition pertains to appointment of Athithi Vidwan (Guest Lecturers) in the subject of Zoology in various colleges, in the District of Rewa. In pursuance to an advertisement issued by the State Government for filling up the post of Guest Lecturers in various colleges, petitioner applied for appointment in the subject of Zoology. In the advertisement issued by the State Government as contained in Annexure P/1, Clause 2.6 contemplates a provision which enabled a candidate to give preference in the matter of appointment by indicating 10 Institutes, where the candidate can apply for the post in question. In the online advertisement issued as is evident from Annexure P/3, in District Rewa, various colleges were notified and some of the colleges notified were Government Adarsh Science College, Rewa, where five vacant posts in the subject of Zoology were shown. Similar vacancies were notified in Government Girls PG College, Rewa, where one post in the subject of Zoology; and, Madhav Sadashivrao Golvalkar College, Rewa was notified, where also one post was shown to be available. Petitioner submitted his online application and gave preference of his colleges. Annexure P/4 is the application submitted by the petitioner, duly acknowledged by the Verifying Executive and as per the preference, petitioner gave first preference to Government Adarsh Science College, Rewa, where five vacant posts in the subject of Zoology were notified; second and third preference were given to Madhav Sadashivrao Golvalkar College, Rewa and Government Girls PG College, Rewa. The applications were scrutinized and it was found that petitioner had received 65.5000 marks, as per merit. In the merit list notified for appointment, after first round of counseling as contained in Page 30 of the paper book, petitioner was found to be selected for the fifth post available in Government Adarsh Science College, Rewa. Against the fifth post available as per merit petitioner was the fifth candidate and inspite thereof when the petitioner was not appointed, he has filed this writ petition. On notices being issued, respondents have filed reply. Against the fifth post available as per merit petitioner was the fifth candidate and inspite thereof when the petitioner was not appointed, he has filed this writ petition. On notices being issued, respondents have filed reply. From the reply filed by respondents 1 to 4, it is seen that when the initial advertisement was issued and when the first round of counseling and publication of result was undertaken, even though five posts were shown vacant in Government Adarsh Science College, Rewa, but it was a mistake committed as there were only three vacant posts and, therefore, the mistake was rectified on 1.8.2012 vide Annexure R/1 and it is the case of the respondents that in Government Adarsh Science College, Rewa only three posts are available after correction and as per merit, the three posts have gone to Dr. Dinesh Prasad Patel; Dr. Neeta Mishra; and, Dr. Amitabh Mishra, who were more meritorious than the petitioner and as the petitioner has received less marks, than them and as there were only three posts vacant, it is stated that petitioner cannot be appointed in Government Adarsh Science College, Rewa. However, petitioner submits that if he could not be appointed in Government Adarsh Science College, Rewa because of his marks being less than the first three meritorious candidates, it is stated that as per the preference given, the second preference of the petitioner was for Madhav Sadashivrao Golvalkar College, Rewa and in the said college the last person appointed is Dr. Ajit Mishra, who has received 65.0833 marks. It is stated that this person has received less marks than the petitioner in the subject of Zoology and inspite of the petitioner giving second preference to the Institute, he has not been appointed. Similarly, it is stated that respondent No.6 Anjana Tiwari has been appointed in Government Girls PG College, Rewa; she has obtained 64.5833 marks, which is also less than the marks obtained by the petitioner and even though petitioner has given third preference to this College, the petitioner has not been appointed. Accordingly, the alternate argument now submitted is that even if there were three posts in Government Adarsh Science College, Rewa then petitioner should have been appointed in the Colleges under preference No.2 or 3, where persons less meritorious than the petitioner are appointed, as is indicated hereinabove. Accordingly, the alternate argument now submitted is that even if there were three posts in Government Adarsh Science College, Rewa then petitioner should have been appointed in the Colleges under preference No.2 or 3, where persons less meritorious than the petitioner are appointed, as is indicated hereinabove. In the return filed by the respondents, they have only explained as to why petitioner cannot be appointed in Government Adarsh Science College, Rewa. They do not show anything about appointment being granted in the Colleges preferred by the petitioner under preference Nos. 2 and 3, where persons with less marks like Dr. Ajit Mishra and Anjana Tiwari have been appointed. Even though Anjana Tiwari is respondent No.6 in the writ petition, she has not responded to the notices issued more than 60 days back. Be it as it may be, the fact remains that in this case petitioner on the basis of a mistake committed by the State Government is suffering in as much as two candidates less meritorious than him have been appointed and petitioner, who is more meritorious that these two persons as indicated hereinabove, has not been appointed on the post inspite of his merit. From the records, it is seen that realizing the mistake after the second round of counseling, an amended list – Annexure P/3 was published, in which petitioner was offered appointment in Government College, Gudh. It is the case of the petitioner that he was willing to join, but the Commissioner, Higher Education cancelled the second list as a result petitioner could not be appointed. If that be so, the respondents are directed to either give appointment to the petitioner in the College as per the list – Annexure R/3 or in any other Institute where vacancy is available as per merit of the petitioner. That being so, respondents are required to correct the entire merit list and based on the preference given and the marks obtained by the petitioner, take steps for granting appointment to the petitioner as per his merit. If respondent No.6 has to make room for the petitioner, action should be taken for creating a post or removing the said person or by adjusting the petitioner in any available post, where he can be accommodated. If respondent No.6 has to make room for the petitioner, action should be taken for creating a post or removing the said person or by adjusting the petitioner in any available post, where he can be accommodated. Accordingly, respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of preference given and after taking note of the merit of the petitioner, in case it is found that a less meritorious candidate has been appointed in the subject in question, action be taken for correcting the mistake if any after issuing notice and hearing the person, who may be adversely affected by any action that is to be taken. The entire action for correcting the mistake, if any, be undertaken and a decision taken within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.