Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 114 (MP)

Anjleena Masih v. State of M. P.

2023-01-23

ANAND PATHAK

body2023
ORDER 1. The petitioner preferred instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- "7.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to cancel the impugned selection list dated 17.11.2022 (Annexur-P/7) issued by the respondent and direct the respondent to issue a fresh list by including the name of petitioner by considering the representation of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 7.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble court finds the petitioner to be entitled be also granted. 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been working since 2013, now fresh list has been issued by the Department in which name of the petitioner does not find place. Since he was working for almost 10 years, therefore, his anxiety is that he is rendered unemployed. Executive Engineer and Superintendent Engineer have recommended inclusion of name of petitioner in the fresh list of appointment. He received "A" Grade through out his career. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents/ State opposed the prayer but fairly submits that if any representation is pending then same shall be taken care of in accordance with law/prevailing guidelines. 4. Considering the rival submissions advanced by the parties, it appears that petition can be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to prefer a representation within seven days elaborating all his contentions and appreciation letters, if any, in support of his submission to the respondent No.2, Chief Managing Director of Madhya Pradesh Poorva Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd. Shakti Bhawan Rampur Jabalpur (M.P.). If such representation is so preferred, then the respondent No.2 shall take into account working of petitioner and thereafter ensure passing of appropriate order in accordance with law under due intimation to the petitioner within three weeks thereafter. 5. Looking to the nature of dispute, it is expected that authority shall adhere to the time line and decide the representation within stipulated time period. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and matter shall be heard and decided on its own merits. Accordingly, petition is finally disposed of.