Madhya Pradesh High Court
Veersingh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 July, 2014
1 W.P. No.7506/2005(S)
09.07.2014
Shri Arpan Shrivastava, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate for the
respondent-State.
The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by his non-selection to the post of Constable in the Home Department of State of M.P. The petitioner's contention is that he is working as Home Guard and an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of Constable (GD) in the Home Department (Police, State of M.P.). The petitioner has further stated that that he was entitled for grant of 10 additional marks. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards column no. 5(1) (3) of the advertisement and his contention is that in case a home guard personnel has completed three years of service as a Home Guard, 10 marks were required to be granted to him, however, the respondents while conducting the process of selection have not at all granted 10 bonus marks to the petitioner and therefore, he has not selected only on account of non grant of 10 bonus marks for which he is lawfully entitled therefore, he has been deprived of the benefit of appointment to the post of Constable (GD).
Reply has been filed by the respondents in the matter and in the reply the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner has been granted 5 marks for possessing the driving licence and 11 marks for personal interview. The reply no where reflects that the respondents have granted 10 bonus marks to the petitioner on account of the fact that he is a member of home guard. Learned counsel 2 W.P. No.7506/2005(S) for respondents has argued before this Court that 10 marks were granted to those persons who have put in 3 or more than 3 years of service as a Home Guard.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The certificate on record enclosed as Annexure P/4 at page no. 9, filed by the petitioner, which has been issued by the District Commandant Home Guard, Harda, certifies that the petitioner has worked as a Home Guard for a period of 6 years 8 months. Meaning thereby the petitioner is certainly entitled for 10 bonus marks. It has been further stated by learned counsel for petitioner that last candidate selected for the post of Constable (GD) has received 17 marks whereas the petitioner has received 16 marks only. Meaning thereby if 10 marks are granted to the petitioner for which he is lawfully entitled, the petitioner certainly finds a place in the select list prepared by the respondents which is on record as Annexure R/1.
Resultantly, this court is of the considered opinion that the petition of the petitioner deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to grant 10 additional marks to the petitioner as he has served for more than six years as a Home Guard and to review the result prepared by them in respect of Constable (GD), Bhopal. It is needless to mention that the respondents while taking appropriate steps in accordance with law after granting 10 additional marks shall issue a consequential appointment order in favour of the petitioner. In the present case other persons who have received less marks than the petitioner have been 3 W.P. No.7506/2005(S) appointed as Constable (GD) and therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of lapse committed by the respondents and therefore, the age bar if any will not come in the way of the petitioner. The respondents while issuing appointment order of the petitioner shall also grant all consequential benefits like seniority, grant of increments consequential promotion except back wages.
It is needless to mentioned that this Court on 11/08/2005 has granted an interim order directing the respondents to keep one post reserved for the petitioner, for the selection of Constable (General Duty) and therefor, the question of discontinuing any other persons who have already been appointed does not arise.
The exercise of passing orders as directed by this court be positively concluded within 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that in case the order passed by this Court today is not complied with within 90 days, the petitioner shall be entitled for 25% back wages .
With the aforesaid this petition is allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.C. SHARMA) JUDGE AKM