Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 912 (MP)

Ajaybhan Bagri v. State of M. P.

2013-08-05

K.K.Trivedi

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioner, who was a candidate for appointment on the post of Village Employment Assistant has approached this Court challenging the validity of advertisement dated 2.6.2012 contending that the process was initiated on 22.7.2010 by inviting application, the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 and many others were candidates in the said proceedings. After receipt of the application and completing the formalities, a list was prepared in which the name of respondent No. 6 was shown at Serial No. 1 and the name of the petitioner was shown in the waiting list. The facts were brought to the notice of the authorities by the petitioner that in fact the respondent No. 6 was ineligible candidate as he has produced certain documents which were not to be taken into consideration. However, no action was taken on such a complaint made by the petitioner. On the other hand, after a long time fresh proceedings were initiated for recruitment on the aforesaid post. It is, thus, contended that in case complaint made by the petitioner would have been looked into, the name of the respondent No. 6 would have been removed from the list and that being so, the petitioner who was at Serial No. 2 of the list would have been appointed on the single post in the particular area. Since this has not been done illegally, the proceedings have been initiated afresh, such action of the respondents is bad in law and as such, fresh proceedings are liable to be quashed. On the basis of these allegations, the petitioner has claimed the relief in the following manner :- “(1) That this Hon’ble Court would be pleased to quash the recruitment advertisement notice dated 2.6.2012 by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. (2) This Hon’ble Court would be pleased to direct that the petitioner be declared entitled for getting appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus. (2) This Hon’ble Court would be pleased to direct that the petitioner be declared entitled for getting appointment on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus. (3) This Hon’ble Court would be pleased to hold that the name of respondent No. 6 has been placed at serial No. 1 and having received 15 marks in the MATE certificate in the circumstances of having fraud fake certificate in such a situation petitioner be declared entitled to get appointment on the basis of the facts that his name was placed at Serial No. 2 in the merit list, by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus and to grant such other further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 2. Upon service of the notice on respondents, the official respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their return and have contended that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the advertisement dated 2.6.2012. In fact, after the instructions were issued by the competent authority, all Collectors, District Programme Co-ordinator and Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat were informed by the M.P. Rajya Rojgar Parishad Bhopal, to initiate the proceedings for recruitment of Village Employment Assistant. The guidelines were issued by the said Parishad. It is contended that a provisional merit list was prepared when earlier a selection process was started on 22.7.2010. After the said list was made, an objection was submitted by the petitioner contending that the certificate of MATE submitted by the respondent No.6 was forged one and the same cannot be taken into consideration while assigning the marks to respondent No.6. However, on enquiry it was found that such an allegation of the petitioner was misconceived. Again since it was objected that enquiry was not properly conducted, the Additional District Programe Coordinator Panna was directed to conduct a detail enquiry and after the enquiry it is stated that such a certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 6 was not correct or genuine. On account of these reasons and pending enquiry, the proceedings of selection were not finalised as were started in the year 2010 and since the appointment of Village Employment Assistant is to be made on a contract of one year and the said period was over, fresh proceedings have been done. On account of these reasons and pending enquiry, the proceedings of selection were not finalised as were started in the year 2010 and since the appointment of Village Employment Assistant is to be made on a contract of one year and the said period was over, fresh proceedings have been done. Since the list so prepared in the year 2010 was not acted upon at all, no right is accrued to the petitioner to claim appointment on the basis of such a list. It is, thus, contended that the entire petition being based on misconceived facts, is liable to be dismissed. 3. The respondent No. 6 has independently filed the return and first objection taken by the respondent No. 6 is that th petitioner himself has taken part in the proceedings when initiated on 2.6.2012. It is submitted that the petitioner has taken part in the said selection by making an application on 17.9.2012, participated in the selection process and he has not been found fit for such selection and appointment on the post. It is contended that once the petitioner has taken part in the selection and has failed or declared unsuccessful, he cannot challenge the said selection on any ground. Further, it is contended that the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing a representation/appeal before the District Programe Coordinator in the case of non-selection. Having a remedy under the Scheme and not resorting the same, the writ petition would not lie before this Court. Further, it is contended that the select list so made in the year 2010 has become obsolete on account of lapse of time and now after about two years of making of the said list, direction cannot be issued to make appointment pursuance to the said list. Though the petitioner is also similarly situated having the similar qualifications as that are possessed by respondent No. 6 , only because on earlier occasion opportunity of hearing was not granted to the respondent No.6, these facts could not be pointed out to the Committee and a report was given against the respondent No. 6. This being so, the writ petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the record, it is clear that the petitioner himself was a candidate for selection when the same was initiated by advertisement dated 2.6.2012. This being so, the writ petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the record, it is clear that the petitioner himself was a candidate for selection when the same was initiated by advertisement dated 2.6.2012. Annx.R6/1 is the application form submitted by the petitioner for the said selection, which has not been disputed by him. Thus, it is a fact that the petitioner has taken part in the said selection. If he was not selected in the said proceedings, on account of the merit assessment, no cause was available to the petitioner to challenge said selection by filing a writ petition in this Court. If the petitioner was aggrieved with selection of anybody, the remedy was available to the petitioner to challenge such selection before the competent authority by filing the appeal as prescribed under the Scheme. Secondly, the petitioner is insisting that he should be declared as successful in the previous selection which was not materialised only because of objection raised by the petitioner himself. If for any reason, the authorities considered it proper to start the fresh proceedings for selection, decided not to act on the previous select list so made, it cannot be said that the authorities have acted beyond their authorities or jurisdiction. The employer has every right to act on a select list or not to act on the said select list at all. It is not the case that out of the said select list, somebody else have been appointed and the select list is not acted upon only for the persons like petitioner and respondent No. 6. That being so, no fault is found in initiating the process of selection afresh by the respondents. 5. In view of the aforesaid, there is no force in the writ petition which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.