Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 747 (MP)

Somdutt Dixit v. M. P. P. S. C.

2013-07-03

R.S.JHA

body2013
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to quash the order dated 17-6-2013 Annexure P/l and permit him to appear in the interview being conducted by the respondent No. 1/State Services Examination 2010 for appointment in the State Services. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner had appeared in the preliminary and main examination of State Services Examination 2010 and has cleared the same. It is stated that the result of the preliminary examination was declared on 5-8-2011, thereafter the main examination was conducted in December, 2011 and January, 2012, however, the result thereof was declared after one year four months by releasing the same on the Internet on 27-4-2013 and was also published in the Rojgar and Nirman on 6-5-2013. In the said result, it was stated that the selected candidates were required to complete all formalities and submit requisite documents before the competent authority by the cut-off date of 21-5-2013 but as the petitioner failed to note the result of the main examination in time, he could not complete the formalities by 21-5-2013 but did so, after 20 days i.e. 10-6-2013, on account of which, the respondents have issued communication dated 17-6-2013 Annexure P/1 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a successful candidate having passed the preliminary as well as the main examination in spite of which he has been debarred only on account of the fact that he could not note the result of the main examination in time and in such circumstances, the respondents/authorities be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for selection, in the State Services. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Public Service Commission, per contra, submits that the respondents had published the result in the internet on 27-4-2013 and had also published in Rojgar and Nirman on 6-5-2013 along with a specific and clear note that all relevant documents and formalities were required to be completed by the selected candidates latest by 21-5-2013, failing which it would be presumed that the applicant concerned does not wish to participate in the process. This fact is mentioned at the back of page No. 28 of Annexure P/3, filed along with the petition. This fact is mentioned at the back of page No. 28 of Annexure P/3, filed along with the petition. It is submitted that in such circumstances as the necessary formalities were completed after the cut-off date of 21-5-2013 by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner's claim has rightly been rejected and in such circumstances, there can be no consideration on sympathetic ground as this would open a flood gate and would make the entire selection process unending and illegal as it would result in participation of disqualified candidates in the selection process. 5. Having perused the averments made in the petition and the documents filed therewith, it is clear that though on the one hand the petitioner claims to be an alert and intelligent candidate as he has cleared the preliminary and main examinations, however on the other hand he has himself stated that he failed to take note of the fact that the result of the main examination was declared on the Internet on 27-4-2013 and thereafter published in the Rojgar and Nirman on 6-5-2013. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner is unacceptable as no reasonably acceptable explanation has been furnished as well as in view of the fact that the entire process of selection including filling of the initial application form was done through Internet by the petitioner himself. The petitioner has also not stated or specified the date on which he actually came to know about the result nor has he stated any reason as to why he could not take the necessary steps between 6-5-2013 and 21-5-2013 i.e. from the date of publication of the result in the news paper. For the above reasons, the submissions of the petitioner do not deserve to be accepted. 6. It is also observed that the process of selection undertaken by the respondents is a tedious one, which requires time and meticulous scrutiny and therefore, specific and clear dates for doing particular acts like filing of applications, documents, conducting examinations, interview etc., are specified only for the purposes of ensuring that the entire selection process is transparent and fair and that equal opportunity and notice to all those who participate in the selection process is given. 7. 7. It also goes without saying that in the instant case after declaration of the result and completing all the formalities regarding filing documents etc., the respondent PSC is required to scrutinize the documents of each and every applicant and thereafter prepare a list, which is a time consuming meticulous process and it is for this purpose that the PSC in the instant case has specifically stated while declaring result of the main examination that the requisite formalities have to be completed by the candidate concerned latest by 21-5-2013, failing which it shall be presumed that the candidate is not interested in participating any further in the selection process. I am also of the considered opinion that this cut-off date mentioned by the PSC in the result is final and binding on all concerned and should not generally be extended or relaxed in individual cases. It may however, be extended for justified reasons by the PSC itself by a general order extending the date uniformly for all the candidates concerned. If relaxation is granted or permitted in individual cases on selective basis without public notice and general relaxation, it would offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it would deprive other candidates of participation, who for some reason have not been able to apply or comply with the stipulations before the cut-off date and who may be more deserving and meritorious. I am inclined to say so, as the petitioner or any candidate for that matter has no indefensible, constitutional or statutory right to claim relaxation of the date only for himself except in exceptional cases of extreme hardship and injustice on account of reason beyond the control of the candidate which is not the case in the present petition, which may be granted by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. 8. From the above discussion, it is clear that any relaxation of the date in individual cases would offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and would also result in opening a flood gate thereby frustrating the entire selection process as well as depriving the PSC of sufficient and adequate time to scrutinize documents and applications of the candidates thereby prejudicing the fairness of selection and therefore, the prayer for sympathetic consideration made by the petitioner without any acceptable and justifiable reasons deserves to be rejected. Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Braj Kishore Prasad and etc. etc. vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 7999 (2) SLR 444. 9. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless, is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.