Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1116 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Sunita Bajpai

2014-09-04

ANIL SHARMA, RAJENDRA MENON

body2014
ORDER 1. Exemption from removing the default as prayed for vide I.A. No.9976/2014 is allowed. 2. Default be ignored. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. 4. Calling in question tenability of an order dated 1.5.2013 passed by the writ Court in W.P. No.10586/2008, this appeal has been filed by the State Government under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 5. Respondent was a candidate who had participated in the process of appointment on contract basis to the post of Ashram Adhikshika (Hostel Superintendent). The Selection process was conducted in accordance to the statutory rules namely the “M.P. Tribal and Scheduled Castes Welfare Department Hostel/Ashram Samvida Adhikshak Recruitment on Contract Basis Rules, 2008”. 6. As per the Rules the advertisement was issued and a selection process was conducted. The selection process consisted of a written examination, interview and marks were also allotted for experience and various other criteria. The selection process took place and respondent Smt. Sunita Bajpai received the highest marks based on the written examination and her experience and at the time of interview it seems that she had an apprehension that questions were being asked in a manner so as to oust her from the selection. Accordingly, after participating in the interview, she immediately made a protest to the Collector namely the Chairman of the Selection Committee constituted under the Rules and sought for an enquiry. Nothing was done and in the meanwhile, a Member of the Selection Committee directed for revaluation of the answer sheets, got the answer sheets of all the candidates revalued and marks of the petitioner was reduced and she was ousted from selection. Challenging the entire action the writ petition was filed before the writ Court. 7. The writ Court examined the matter and found that the revaluation ordered by Member of a Committee was illegal. Under the statutory rules the selection was to be conducted by a Committee constituted in accordance to the requirement of statute which consisted of the Collector as its Chairman. It was found from the record that revaluation of the answer sheets and the change of marks was ordered at the instance of one of the Members of the Selection Committee who happened to be a Member in the interview Board. It was found from the record that revaluation of the answer sheets and the change of marks was ordered at the instance of one of the Members of the Selection Committee who happened to be a Member in the interview Board. It was found by the writ Court that the entire process of revaluation to be illegal as the revaluation and change of mark was ordered by a Member of the Selection Committee and not by the Committee headed by the Collector. Accordingly, the impugned action has been cancelled and the learned writ Court for proceeding with the Selection process based on the selection already done. 8. Having considered the rival contentions and on going through the reasons given by learned writ Court for interferring with the matter, we see no error warranting reconsideration. 9. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.