Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar Nakda vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.260/2016
(Vinod Kumar Nakda Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Indore; dated 12.03.2018
Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Bharti Lakkad, learned counsel for the
respondents/ State.
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 04.11.2015 by which services of the petitioner has been terminated. The petitioner was appointed as Pharmacist on contract basis vide order dated 05.09.2013. The period of contract of the petitioner was extended time to time. That, alongwith the petitioner other candidates were also appointed as Pharmacist. After the appointment the CMO, Mandsour (M.P.) has considered the eligibility of the petitioner and found that the ap- pointment of the petitioner was against the rules and he was not eligible for the post of Pharmacist and his ap- pointment is forged also.
The similar cases came up for hearing before this Court in W.P. Nos. 749/2016, 1479/2016 & 1500/2016. By order dated 07.02.2018 all the writ petitions have been dismissed. The operative part of order is reproduced below:-
" The original record reflects that advertisement was issued for appointment on the post of Pharmacist and after scrutiny of the applications, initially the merit list dated 7/3/13 was prepared. Thereafter a complaint was received alleging irregularities in preparing the merit list. Hence the selection process was stayed and appointment orders dated 20/3/13 were kept in abeyance. After the enquiry and considering the objections, the fresh select list was prepared and forwarded by the Incharge Officer to CMHO Mandsaur on 3/5/13. The said select list was displayed in the notice board of CMHO Mandsaur on 3/5/13 and objections were invited. The petitioner in WP No. 749/16 had submitted the objection which was rejected.
The appointment of petitioner in WP No. 749/16 was under OBC category and order of appointment of petitioner dated 31/8/2013 states that petitioner was appointed in pursuance to the revised merit list dated 3/5/13 but a perusal of the revised merit list dated 3/5/13 reveals that under the OBC male category, the last selected candidate had obtained 63.55% marks and last candidate in the waiting list had obtained 53.28% marks, whereas the chart containing the details of marks obtained by all candidates namely "all forms of pharmacist" reveals that petitioner's name figures in that chart at Sr.No. 595 and he had obtained only 36.12% marks. Since petitioner had obtained less than the cut-off marks in the main merit list and waiting list of OBC male candidate, therefore, he was not entitled for appointment on the post of Pharmacist.
So far as the petitioner in WP No. 1479/16 is concerned, he belongs to General Category and he was issued the notice dated 9/10/15 for cancellation of his appointment on the ground that neither his name figures in the select list nor he had submitted any application for appointment.
It has been pointed out by learned counsel for respondents that the name of petitioner does not figure in the table of all forms of pharmacist which contains the details and marks of all applicants who had made the application for appointment nor does his name figure in the merit list or waiting list of selected candidates which means that the petitioner was appointed even without applying for the post.
In WP No. 1500/16 the petitioner was a candidate under Female General Category and she had obtained 36.15% marks whereas the cut-off marks in the merit list of the Female General Category was 55.13% and the cut-off marks in the waiting list of Female General Category was 39.27%. Since the petitioner had obtained less than the marks of last candidate of waiting list unreserved women candidate, therefore, she could not have been appointed.
The record further reflects that petitioners were issued the show cause notice and after giving an opportunity of hearing the impugned orders have been passed terminating their services on the ground that they had obtained less than the cutoff marks of the final select list and waiting list or had not even submitted the application for appointment. That apart it is also noticed that appointment of petitioners was on contract basis which as per terms of the appointment could be terminated after giving one month's notice or the contract amount in lieu thereof and in compliance of said condition, the petitioners have been paid the contract amount of one month.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by respondents in passing the impugned orders and terminating the services of petitioners. The writ petitions are found to be devoid of any merit which are accordingly dismissed. The signed order be placed in the record of WP No.749/16 and copy whereof be placed in the record of connected writ petitions.
In view of the above, the petition filed by petitioner is hereby dismissed.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2018.03.15 11:58:01 +05'30'