Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. (Mrs.) Sadhana Kesharwani vs Dr. (Mrs.) Ankita Bohare on 20 January, 2015
1
W.A . No. 02 of 2015 & W.A No. 16 of 2015
20.01.2015
Shri P.R. Bhave, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
D.C.Gupta learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.S. Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Manoj
Sharma and Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent
no.1.
These two appeals have been filed by Dr. Sadhna Kesharwani against the orders passed in W.P. No. 6294/2011 (s) and W.P. No. 4086/2011.
2. The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Professors in various subjects. The controversy in this appeal is in regard to appointment to the post of Professor, (Zoology). The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for appointment for 25 posts, out of which 12 posts thereof were for unreserved category. The appellant pleaded in W.P. No. 6294/2011 (s) that the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 12, 13 and 14 were not eligible to be appointed on the posts of Professor (Zoology). It is an admitted fact that the aforesaid respondents were placed in the merit list whereas the appellant was placed at serial no. 3 in the waiting list.
3. The appellant has challenged the selection of the respondents on the ground that the experience of the candidates who worked on contract basis as Guest Faculty in the Government colleges and Government Aided Colleges and University should not be counted. The appellant further contended that Smt. Dr. Ankita Bohare did not have the requisite qualification and experience. The aforesaid points have been considered by the writ court in detail. The writ court has 2 considered the qualification of Smt. Dr. Ankita Bohare in paragraph nos. 17, 18 and 19 of the order and the findings recorded by the writ court in this regard are in accordance with law. The writ court has also taken note of the fact that the appellant was placed in the waiting list and the period of list has already been expired. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant does not dispute the fact that the period of list has already been expired.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Rishi Mehra and others Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243 has held as under in regard to right of selection of a wait list candidate:-
15. The question whether the candidates whose names are included in the waiting list are entitled to be appointed against the unfilled posts as of right is no longer res integra and must be answered in negative in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v.
Ishwar Singh Khatri 1992 Supp (3) SCC 84, Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Association v. State of Gujarat, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others (1994) 1 SCC 126, Prem Singh and others v. Haryana SEB and others 1996) 4 SCC 319, Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others (1996) 1 SCC 283, Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (1997) 8 SCC 488, Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others (1995) 3 SCC 486, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others (1998) 3 SCC 45, State of J&K and others v.
3Sanjeev Kumar and others (2005) 4 SCC 148, State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others (2006) 3 SCC 330, Ram Avtar Patwari and others v. State of Haryana and others 2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray and others v. High Court of Delhi and others (2010) 2 SCC 637.
16. In Surinder Singh case, this Court observed as under: (SCC, P. 494, para 4).
"A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to 4 the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service (Gujrat State Dy. Executive Engineers Assn. Case SCC, P. 599, para 9).
5. Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, in our opinion there is illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the writ court. Consequently, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Both the appeals are hereby dismissed accordingly.
(Rajendra Menon) ( S.K. Gangele )
Judge Judge
bks