Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 424 (MP)

Meera Ajnaria v. State of M. P.

2019-06-19

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2019
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a relief that a direction be issued to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (Special Duty). 2. The case of the petitioner is that she had applied for the post of Constable (Special Duty) as per the advertisement dated 8.2.2010 issued by the respondent No.1-Inspector General of Police, Bhopal. After the petitioner's application was scrutinized she was put to physical efficiency test exam and interview and after succeeding in all these tests she was selected on the post of Constable (General Duty). 3. The petitioner's contention is that she had applied for the post of Constable (Special Branch) and not for the post of Constable (General Duty), hence a representation to this effect was also submitted by the petitioner before the respondent No.1-Inspector General of Police, Bhopal, but to no avail. A letter to this effect was also submitted by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Sehore (M.P.) on 6.9.2010 that she be given the post of Constable (Special Duty) instead of Constable (General Duty). In response to the aforesaid letter the petitioner received a letter issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sehore (M.P.) dated 26.10.2010 informing that the recruitment was done at the ranged level and as she had good marks and was successful candidate in the merit list, hence she was given appointment in general category and not in reserved category and the post of Constable (Special Branch) has already been filled up, hence she cannot be given the appointment on the post of Constable (Special Branch). The appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 27.10.2010 for the post of Constable (General Duty). Again a representation was submitted by the petitioner on 2.11.2010 to the respondent No.1- Inspector General of Police, Headquarter Bhopal, but again no response was given by the concerned Inspector General. Thus, the petitioner has assailed the inaction on the part of the respondents to post her on the post of Constable (Special Duty). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had not applied for the post of Constable (General Duty) and in fact she applied for the post of Constable (Special Duty), thus the respondents could not have posted her on the post of Constable (General Duty). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had not applied for the post of Constable (General Duty) and in fact she applied for the post of Constable (Special Duty), thus the respondents could not have posted her on the post of Constable (General Duty). It is further submitted that the petitioner had secured good marks and she was entitled to be posted on the post of Constable (Special Duty) as per her choice and preference. 5. A return to the writ petition has also been filed by the respondents and it has been specifically averred that in the application form no specific column was prescribed so as to suggest a candidate that he/she should apply for a particular post of Constable in a particular wing and it is submitted that merely because the petitioner had mentioned in her application form that she is interested to get herself appointed against the post of Constable (Special Branch) the same does not provide any special consideration of this post by the Selection Committee. It is further submitted by the respondents that after completion of selection process, the merit list was prepared and since the petitioner was found to have secured good marks, she was assigned merit at higher position amongst unreserved category candidates. It is further submitted that the SC (Female) candidates, who have secured much less marks were to be considered against respective quota and accordingly five posts of Constable (Special Branch) under SC (Female) category in Bhopal District have been filled up by such candidates, whereas as per higher merit position the petitioner was allotted Constable (General Duty) in District Sehore (MP). Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that she should have been appointed as Constable (Special Branch) against quota of five posts in District Bhopal (MP) as she has already been appointed as Constable (General Duty) vide order dated 27.10.2010. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that she should have been appointed as Constable (Special Branch) against quota of five posts in District Bhopal (MP) as she has already been appointed as Constable (General Duty) vide order dated 27.10.2010. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. A perusal of the record this Court finds that on 18.4.2018 this Court had directed the counsel for the State to verify and produce the application form of the petitioner on next date of hearing, as the respondents have averred in their return that in the application form no specific column was prescribed so as to suggest a candidate that he/she should apply for a particular post of Constable in a particular wing and in pursuance of the aforesaid order the respondents have also placed on record the copy of the application submitted by the petitioner and a perusal of the same clearly reveals that the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable (Special Branch) in para 1 of the application form itself which provides as under: