Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. State Pubic Service Commission vs Roma Sonkar on 8 February, 2017
Author: Rajendra Menon
Bench: Rajendra Menon
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR.
W.A. No.362 of 2016
Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission
vs.
Roma Sonkar & anr.
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon, Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo. J.
______________________________________________________
Whether approved for reporting? - Yes/No
Shri Saurabh Parmar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Swapnil Ganguli, G.A., for the respondent No.2/State.
______________________________________________________
O R D E R ( Oral )
8 .02.2017 Per : Rajendra Menon, Acting Chief Justice:
Seeking exception to an order dated 28.3.2016 passed by the learned writ Court in W.P.No.7285/2015, this appeal has been filed by the appellant; M.P.State Public Service Commission u/s 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.
2- Petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) was a candidate who appeared in the examination conducted by the M.P. State Public Service Commission for recruitment to various services in the State namely; the State Service Examination 2010. Results of the 2 petitioner with regard to the said examination was declared on 29.8.2013 and after declaration of the result, petitioner submitted a representation and sought supply of the answer-book of the examination under the Right to Information Act. The same was supplied to the petitioner in December, 2013 and thereafter petitioner submitted a representation indicating that there is some error in valuing her answer-book. However, her representations were not considered and, therefore, it is said that petitioner continued to represent in the matter and in the meanwhile in the year 2014 and 2015 based on the examinations conducted various appointments were made. When petitioner's representation submitted in November, 2014 was not addressed, according to the petitioner she went to Indore, contacted a counsel there and handedover all the papers to him, however, between November 2014 to May 2015 when the counsel did not inform her as to what action he has taken she went back to the counsel, obtained all the papers and came to Jabalpur and filed the writ petition in May 2015. The writ Court examined the matter and found that in evaluating the answer book various errors have been committed, the petitioner was entitled to seven additional marks in view of error in valuation of the question No.10(3). Accordingly, by directing the Public Service Commission to amend merit list of the petitioner by awarding seven marks a direction has been issued to 3 the State Government to appoint the petitioner in an appropriate post as per her vacancy. Be that as it may, challenging the said order the Public Service Commission has filed this writ appeal and during the course of hearing of this appeal serious objections were raised, both by the Public Service Commission and the State Government to say that now in view of the delay of more than one and half year caused by the petitioner in approaching this Court the relief granted and the directions issued in para 12 of the order passed by the learned writ Court cannot be granted as after the State Service Examination 2010 was conducted examinations for the years 2014 and 2015 were also conducted and various appointments have been made based on the State Service Examination 2012 and 2014 conducted and without evaluating the position with regard to availability of vacancy right of other candidate, it is stated that the direction issued by the learned writ Court cannot be implemented in the manner and once it is clear that the petitioner has caused the delay, it is stated that the relief granted is not permissible.
3- Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the same and argued that there is no delay. The petitioner has been vigilantly canvassing her case and merely because her counsel slept over the matter from November 2014 upto May 2015, she cannot be denied the benefit available 4 once the learned writ Court has found that there is error in evaluating her answer-book.
4- When these questions came up for heating before this Court, on 14.12.2016 and 3.1.2017 we had requested the State Government to seek instructions and address this issue. However, the State Government has not filed any affidavit and Shri Swapnil Ganguli, Government Advocate invites our attention to the preliminary submissions made by the State Government in this regard before the writ Court para 4 thereof and argues that while granting relief to the petitioner this question has not been adverted to by the writ Court and therefore there is error apparent on the face of the record in deciding the writ petition.
5- However, Shri Arivind Shivastava, argues that if the order of the writ Court is perused, it is indicated by the writ Court that apart from the grounds indicated in the order no other ground was canvassed.
6- We find from the records that in the writ petition a preliminary objection specifically with regard to the delay caused by the petitioner has been raised and in this appeal also the appellant have pointed out that now after the State Service Examination 2012 and 2014 were conducted, and all the appointments were made the relief granted cannot be worked out and it is indicated to us that the question of delay in filing of the 5 writ petition has not been considered by the learned writ Court while granting relief to the petitioner. We find that there is much force in this objection raised before us, both by the State Government and by the Public Service Commission. 7- Admittedly, the results of the examinations were declared on 29.8.2013 and thereafter according to petitioner's own showing appointment orders were started to be issued in 2014 itself. The petitioner received the answer-book under the Right to Information Act in December 2013 and at that point of time even before the appointment orders were made the petitioner was of the know in the matter of illegalities committed in evaluating her answer-book. That being so, the question as to what relief could be granted to the petitioner in the light of the delay caused, if any, between December 2013 to May 2015 and the consequential action of the Department in making appointment has not been adverted to by the learned Writ Court while issuing the direction contained in para 12 of the writ petition. In fact once there was an objection specifically raised in this regard in writing before the learned writ Court, we are of the considered view that this issue should have been addressed by the learned writ Court, even though this issue could be gone into by us, but, in this writ appeal the materials for deciding this issue are not available inasmuch as the effect of preparation of the revised merit list, availability of vacancy, right which had accrued 6 to candidate who has been appointed and adverse effect on their appointment if any are all to be looked into and as the material for deciding these issues are not available in this writ appeal, it thought appropriate to remand the matter back to consider this limited question of granting relief to the petitioner based on the objection for delay raised by the respondent.
8- Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part, uphold the order passed by the learned writ Court in the matter of error in evaluating the answer-book, but, remand the matter back to the learned writ Court to reconsider the question of grating an appropriate relief to the petitioner in the light of the objection raised by the Public Service Commission and the State Government in the matter of delay, if any, caused on the part of the petitioner in seeking the relief.
9- Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed in part and disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) (Smt. Anjuli Palo)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
Khan*