Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vivek Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2015
Writ Petition No.13952/2015
21.8.2015.
Shri Indramani Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha, Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1-State on advance notice.
Heard on admission.
Petitioner, an aspirant for the post of Programme Assistant (Diagnostic Procurement) to be filled on contract basis vide advertisement (Annexure P/1) on the allegation that though short-listed for appointment, the respondents have appointed respondent no.3, who were not in the list.
These contentions are factually incorrect. Evident it is from the advertisement that besides Programme Assistant (Diagnostic Procurement), post of consultant (Procurement Diagnostic) was also advertised. Whereas, the Programme Assistant carried remuneration Rs.30000/-. The post of Consultant carried the remuneration of Rs.45000/-.
Whereas, the petitioner had applied for Programme Assistant (Diagnostic Procurement), as is evident from paragraph 5.2 of the petition, wherein it is stated -
"It is submitted that in the item no.7 of said advertisement the vacancy for post of Programme Assistant (Diagnostic Procurement) published and Writ Petition No.13952/2015 for the said post essential qualification was asked MSC in clinical pathology/MSC in Bio-chemistry/PG diploma in material management and essential experience was asked minimum 1 year of relevant experience in Pharmaceutical or in health sector. Since petitioner is fully eligible for the said post, hence he also applied for the said post as given in Item No.7."
Respondent no.3, as is evident from Annexure P/4, is selected on the post of Consultant (Procurement Diagnostic).
Since the petitioner did not apply for the post of Consultant but for a Programme Assistant, he cannot raise any grievance against the selection of respondent no.3. No relief, therefore, can be granted. Furthermore, none of the documents filed by the petitioner are certified to be true copy of original; therefore, also their authenticity cannot be believed, warranting any indulgence.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed in limine. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vinod