ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding for selection of Chaukidar and Safai Jamadar in respondent's Department in respect of unreserved candidates being illegal and arbitrary. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased quashed the select listed dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure P-1) in respect of respondent no.3 and 4 being disqualified, in the interest of Justice. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondent no 2 and direct him to consider the case of the petitioner and presuming as100% of marks obtained by him in Primary School Exam Certificate for the year 1984-85 and restart the process of selection, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire relevant records from the respondents. 10.5 That, Any other order of orders or Direction or Relief though just and fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 published an advertisement dated 11.07.2013 through direct appointment for the post of Pump Coolly Safai Jamadar and Choukidar. The earliest government of Madhaya Pradesh had declared "No Exam Year for the year 1984-85 and the petitioner was given General Kramonnati from class 5th to Class 6th since there was no exam conducted by the Education Board in the year 1984-85, as such the petitioner could not get the mark-sheet but he is having the certificate issued by the District Education Officer Mahasamund. The petitioner has appeared in he examination for Class VIII in the year 1989 and he has been declared pass with 50% of marks. The petitioner has been registered with employment and training office of District Mahasamund on 26.08.2010. The petitioner being eligible for the two posts Safai Jamadar and Chaukidar applied for the post of Safai Jamadar and Chaukidar pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent No.2. The petitioner also possessed the experience certificate from the Municipal Council of Mahasamund Distt. Mahasamund, as he had work experience of Chaukidar in the office of the respondents up to 2011. The petitioner also possessed the experience certificate from the Municipal Council of Mahasamund Distt. Mahasamund, as he had work experience of Chaukidar in the office of the respondents up to 2011. The respondents called for the inter-view on 12.09.2013 for the post of Safai Jamadar and Chaukidar and the name of the petitioner for the post of Safai Jamadar is at serial no.16 and for Chaukidar at serial no.3. The respondent no.3 submitted the experience certificate in computer operator which has been considered by the respondents for the post of Chaukidar. The respondent no.4 also applied for the post of Safai Jamadar and he mentioned his date of birth as 20.10.1974 and on 01.01.2013 his age was 38 year 2 months and 13 days, but as per rules the maximum age for the general category was 35 years. The respondent no 4 has no experience in Safai Jamadar and he is having experience of driving of JCB Machine and for the same he has submitted his experience certificate before the respondent no 2. Thereafter the respondent no.2 published the list of marks obtained by the candidates for the post of Safai Jamadar and Chaukidar, wherein the name of the petitioner is at serial no.18 in safai Jamadar list and at serial no. 30 in Chaukidar list. In both the lists, Zero marks has been calculated in Primary examination Certificate. The petitioner appeared in interview but his marks in class Vth (Primary School Certificate Exam) has been considered as Zero marks since there was no-exam year declared by the Education Department and the respondents have not considered him in merit list and the select list has been declared by the respondent no.02. Thus, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrarily, illegal and contrary to the law as well as Article 14 & 16 of the constitution of India. The petitioner is having experience to work on the post of Chaukidar but the respondent no 2 has not considered the same and selected a candidate i.e. respondent no.3, who is not having any work experience as 'Chaukidar and even he submitted a certificate of experience in Computer operator, but this fact has not been considered by the respondents. The petitioner is having experience to work on the post of Chaukidar but the respondent no 2 has not considered the same and selected a candidate i.e. respondent no.3, who is not having any work experience as 'Chaukidar and even he submitted a certificate of experience in Computer operator, but this fact has not been considered by the respondents. The petitioner is under cutoff age limits mentioned by the respondents but the age of respondent no.4 was out of cutoff limit and also he has mentioned the same in his application but the respondents have selected him for the post of 'safai Jamadar', which is illegal and arbitrary. The respondent no.4 has no experience to work as 'safai Jamadar' but he has been selected by the respondents on the post of Safai Jamadar, which is illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that in the year 1984-85, the erstwhile State Government of Madhya Pradesh had declared 'no exam year' and the government had not conducted any exam in the year 1984-85 and general Kramonnati was given to the students, thus the petitioner was promoted from class - V to VI without appearing in exam, as such he must be presumed that he has got 100% marks in the 'no exam year declared by the State Government, but this fact has not been considered by the respondents. The petitioner was already working on the post of Chaukidar in the respondents department for a long time and he is most illegible candidate for both the posts of Chaukidar and Safai Jamadar but the respondents have not considered the same. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the aforesaid posts. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that respondent no.3 worked as placement employee in the Municipal Council, Mahasamund at different points of time and he performed various jobs and even carried out the work of Chowkidar. Moreover there was specific clause No.5 in the advertisement dated 11.07.2013 issued by the Municipal Council, Mahasamund, which talked about giving preference to the existing employees of the said Municipalities. Although petitioner possessed Experience Certificate of the post of Chowkidar, but in the selection, his experience was also counted for the post of Safai Jamadar and he was awarded 5 marks. Although petitioner possessed Experience Certificate of the post of Chowkidar, but in the selection, his experience was also counted for the post of Safai Jamadar and he was awarded 5 marks. As per the application form submitted by the respondent no 4, his age as on 01.01.2013 was 38 years and 02 months and since he had the domicile certificate of the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore as per the circular dated 27 09.2013 issued by the State Government, he was granted age relaxation. It is denied that the respondent no.4 had no experience for the post of Safai Jamadar. Since respondent no 4 was a contractual employee, no specific work was assigned to him and at various time intervals, he had performed the work of Safai Jamadar, 3-D JCB Machine/Dumper driver, Peon etc. It is further submitted that zero marks were awarded on account of primary exam certificate not only to the petitioner but to other candidates also. Even respondent no.4 Suresh Prasad Tiwari, who has been selected for the post of Safai Jamadar, has been awarded zero marks and also one candidate namely Arjun Kumar has also been awarded zero marks. Thus no discrimination was carried out by the Selection Committee. Since overall marks of respondent no 4 was highest, as he secured 11.67 marks and overall marks of the petitioner was 8.50, therefore Selection Committee recommended name of respondent no 4 for selection to the post of Safai Jamadar. Similarly, for the post of Chowkidar, respondent no.3 was awarded highest marks 14.27, whereas the petitioner obtained only 7 marks and for the post of Chowkidar, not only petitioner but also respondent no.4 was awarded zero marks in primary exam certificate. The ground taken by the petitioner that he has not been considered for appointment despite having served Municipal Council for long does not give any legal right to the petitioner, as merely working in the said Municipality for a long period does not make him entitle for selection on the aforesaid posts. It is well settled that the petitioner after having participated in the selection process cannot turn back and state that the procedure adopted for selection was wrong and not in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. It is well settled that the petitioner after having participated in the selection process cannot turn back and state that the procedure adopted for selection was wrong and not in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 State submits that state is a formal party in the petition and there is no allegation against the respondent State, as such the petition is liable to be dismissed against the respondent No.1. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and 4 strongly opposes the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel and adopts the submission made by the respondent No.2 and submits that since the respondent Nos.3 & 4 secured higher marks in the selection process, as such no case is made out in favour of the petitioner. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was working on contractual basis in the respondent department and advertisement was published on 11.7.2013 by the respondent no. 2 for the post of Chowkidar and Safai Jamadar. The petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 appeared in the selection process, in which respondent no.3 was selected for the post of Chowkidar, whereas respondent no.4 was selected for the post of Safai Jamader. 9. The main objection of the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste Category, but both the posts were not reserved for Schedule Caste Category, as such he applied from Unreserved Category and the respondents awarded him zero marks for the primary examination certificate, as such erstwhile Government of Madhya Pradesh had declared no examination to be conducted for the year 1984-85 and general promotion were given to the students including the petitioner, as such he has wrongly been awarded zero marks for the primary examination certificate. 10. As per respondent No.2 Municipal Council, the private respondents are also working with the respondent municipal council and the selection committee recommended the name of respondent no.3 and 4 based on their marks. The respondent No.2 has filed tabulation sheets of both the exams which is Annexure – R-2/ 2 and R-2/3. Annexure R 2/2 is the tabulation sheet of the marks obtained for the post of Safai Jamader. The respondent No.2 has filed tabulation sheets of both the exams which is Annexure – R-2/ 2 and R-2/3. Annexure R 2/2 is the tabulation sheet of the marks obtained for the post of Safai Jamader. The petitioner and respondent No.4 obtained marks as under:- dz- vkosnd dk uke firk@ifr dk uke irk jkstxkj dk;kZy; dk thfor iath;u ,ao fnukad tUefrfFk 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk lk{kkRdkj esa izkIrkad vad dqy izkIrkad fjekdZ izkFkfed ijh{kk mRrh.k vuqHko iw.kkZd izkIrkad izfr’kr vad o”kZ vad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1- Lkqjs'k izlkn frokjh Lo- thojk[ku izlkn frokjh Uk;k ikjk okMZ dz-07 egkleqUn CT3405/05/ nov2014 20&10&74 0 0 0-00 0.00 03 o"kZ 3-00 8-67 11- 67 10 lw[ksyky ekysdj Lo-enu yky ekysdj Uk;kikjk vkn'kZ pkSd okMZ dz 06 egkleqUn CT10120104 532/aug2013 05&04&74 0 0 0-0 0- 00 10 o"kZ 5-0 3-00 3-50 8-50 It is clear from the above chart that both petitioner and respondent No.4 were awarded zero marks in the primary school certificate examination and on the head of experience, petitioner was awarded 5 marks and respondent no.4 was awarded 3 marks. In inter-view petitioner was awarded 3.50 marks and respondent no 4 was awarded 8.67 marks. It is also clear from the table that other 8 candidates also secured higher marks than the petitioner but petitioner did not make them necessary party in the petition. 11. Annexure R2/3 is the tabulation sheets of marks obtained for the post of Chowkidar. In inter-view petitioner was awarded 3.50 marks and respondent no 4 was awarded 8.67 marks. It is also clear from the table that other 8 candidates also secured higher marks than the petitioner but petitioner did not make them necessary party in the petition. 11. Annexure R2/3 is the tabulation sheets of marks obtained for the post of Chowkidar. The petitioner and respondent No.3 were awarded marks as under:- dz- vkosnd dk uke firk@ifr dk uke irk jkstxkj dk;kZy; dk thfor iath;u ,ao fnukad tUefrfFk 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk lk{kkRdkj esa izkIrkad vad dqy izkIrkad fjekdZ izkFkfed ijh{kk mRrh.kZ vuqHko iw.kkZd izkIrkaad izfr’kr vad o”kZ vad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1- ftrsUnz egarh IkzHkkr egar LVs’ku jksM jkes’kojh eafnj ds ikl okMZ-06 egkleqUn N-x- CT10120 093286 jun-2015 28-06-1986 200 152 76-0 0 7-60 01 o"kZ 1-00 5-67 14-27 23 lq[ksyky ekysdj Lo-Eknu yky ekysdj OkkMZ ua06 vkn'kZ pkSd u;kikjk egkleqUn CT1012 0104532/ aug.2013 05-04-1974 0 0 0-00 0-00 10 o"kZ 5-00 2-00 7-00 It is clear from this tabulation sheet that the respondent No.3 secured 14.27 total marks, whereas the petitioner secured 7 marks and his name appeared at serial No.23 in the merit list, as such 21 candidates are between petitioner and respondent No.3, but the petitioner did not make them necessary party in the petition. 12. It is well settled principle of law that decision of selection committee about suitability of candidate generally cannot be examined under writ jurisdiction in absence of any malafide or arbitrariness. 13. In the case in hand, the petitioner did not point out any malafide or biasness against the member of selection committee while selecting the respondent Nos.3 & 4 for the aforesaid posts. It is also clear that not only the petitioner but also the other candidate were working with respondent no.2 Department and as per their work experience, the Selection Committee awarded marks to them and there is no illegality or irregularity in the same. 14. In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 15. The writ petition being bereft of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly.