Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 404 (MP)

Madhav Krishan Murari Gupta v. State of M. P.

2016-05-12

ANAND PATHAK

body2016
ORDER 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in delaying the matter of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Rojgar Assistant. 2. According to the petitioner, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) regarding appointment of Rojgar Assistant, the petitioner appeared in the selection process and got 86.22% marks and stood at 1st rank in the merit list of successful candidates whereas, all other qualified candidates are below the petitioner in the merit list. The reason for the petitioner for being crestfallen is that despite achieving first rank in the merit list, he was not called for joining on the post of Rojgar Assistant. According to petitioner, this action of respondents is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner further submitted that some other persons, who appeared in the selection process of Rojgar Assistant with him, have been given appointment whereas, petitioner has been denied the same. 3. On the other hand, respondents No.2 and 3 have submitted reply and have stated that petitioner has not acquired any right of appointment out of the above selection as the list was provisional and same was not finalized and no appointment in relation to said selection was made and therefore, petitioner cannot claim appointment on the basis of said provisional list. 4. According to the respondents, petitioner stood at Serial No.2 in the provisional list. Further submissions of the respondents is that due to certain objections on the selection, matter was forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, wherein, a committee for deciding the said objection was constituted and the said committee directed for verification of the documents of the successful candidates for the purpose of deciding the objection. In the meantime, since there was delay in making appointments, said selection was stayed under the orders of the State Government and therefore, fresh selection had to be made. According to respondents, the fresh selection process undertaken was just and right. 5. A perusal of Annexure P-4 does not reveal that whether it is a final selection list or provisional selection list. Therefore, no finding can be given on the basis of Annexure P-4. 6. According to respondents, the fresh selection process undertaken was just and right. 5. A perusal of Annexure P-4 does not reveal that whether it is a final selection list or provisional selection list. Therefore, no finding can be given on the basis of Annexure P-4. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court over the order passed by this Court on 28.8.2014 in Writ Petition No.6701/2012 (Sushil Bhargav and others v. The State of M.P. and others) and Writ Petition No.6759/2012 (Mahendra Singh and others v. The State of M.P. and others). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case may be disposed of in view of the direction given in the said W.P.(s) which reads as under :- “The petition is disposed of with following directions :- (1) The petitioner may file a detailed representation along with relevant documents before the respondents. (2) In turn, respondents shall consider the representation made by the petitioner and decide the same by a passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within 90 days. (3) It will be open for the petitioner to raise all possible grounds including the ground of alleged discrimination in the said representation. Outcome of the same shall be communicated to the petitioner accordingly. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” 7. Thus, writ petition is disposed of as per the above terms. 8. No order as to costs. Awadesh Sharma for petitioner; Ajay Singh Rathore, Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 and 2/State; D. K. Shrivastava for respondent No.3; D. S. Raghuvanshi for respondent No.4.