Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Bhushan vs High Court Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2018
...1...
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.4849/2018
Bharat Bhushan and others Vs. High Court of M.P. and another
Jabalpur, dated 05/03/2018
Petitioner Bharat Bhushan appears in person as Petitioner
No.1 and as an Advocate for the Petitioners No.2 to 4.
Mr. Amit Seth, Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
The petitioners have claimed following reliefs in the present writ petition:-
"(i) An appropriate writ or order or direction may kindly be issued for giving to the petitioners also the benefit of relaxation provided by Notifications dated 04.02.2016 and 01.02.2018 considering the petitioners against the unfilled vacancies declaring the petitioners as selected for being recommended for appointment in M.P. Higher Judicial Services (Direct Recruitment from Bar) Examination, in the interest of justice; or
(ii) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction may kindly be passed which is deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. The petitioners were the candidates for appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry-Level), the process of selection of which was initiated in March, 2010 for filling up of 20 posts from amongst the Advocates. The petitioners qualified the preliminary examination, the result of which was declared on 5.9.2010. The petitioners appeared in the main examination, the result of which was declared in February, 2011. 36 candidates were called for viva-
...2...
voce. The petitioners were called for viva-voce. The result was declared on 23.3.2011 but the petitioners were not in the final select list for the reason that they did not secure minimum cut off marks in the interview.
3. The petitioners filed writ petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said writ petitions, petitioners were relegated to avail the remedy from this Court. It is, therefore, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court and all those writ petitions were decided on 11.8.2015. The said writ petitions were dismissed though, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.88/2015 (Bharat Bhushan Vs. High Court of M.P. & another) and other petitions, that in the absence of statutory rule permitting cutoff marks for viva voce, all appointment processes hereafter must be in conformity with the qualification norms specified in the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association and others Vs. Union of India and others (2002) 4 SCC 247.
4. Thereafter, fresh selection process was initiated vide advertisement dated 23.11.2015. The petitioners did not apply for appointment by direct recruitment in response to such an advertisement issued. A separate process was initiated for filling up of 69 vacancies in terms of proviso to Rule 5(1)(c) of the Madhya ...3...
Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (in short 'the Rules').
5. The petitioners have claimed benefit of relaxation provided vide Notifications dated 4.2.2016 and 1.2.2018 against unfilled vacancies for appointment of M.P. Higher Judicial Service (District Judge-Entry Level) meant for direct recruitment.
6. The petitioners have not applied in response to the advertisement dated 23.11.2015 to fill up the vacant posts from the Members of the Bar. Once the petitioners have not applied for appointment against the direct recruitment quota, the petitioners cannot claim any relaxation for appointment against the posts so advertised on 23.11.2015. The petitioners were candidates in the selection process initiated in March, 2010. Their remedy lies against only that selection process and not against subsequent selection process.
7. In view thereof, we find the present petition to be without any merit. The same is thus dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
C
Digitally signed by CHRISTOPHER PHILIP
Date: 2018.03.06 01:49:45 -08'00'