Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vishnu Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2015

                                 1
                                                 WP No.2212/2014

    (Vishnu Singh Tomar Vs. State of MP & Others)
05.08.2015
      Shri Madhusudan Shrivastava, Advocate for petitioner.
      Shri Vijay Sunderam, Panel Lawyer for respondents 1 to

2/State.

None for respondents no. 3 and 4.

Shri Sushil Goswami, Advocate for respondent no.5.

1. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 despite having filed his Vakalatnama in September 2014 has failed to file any reply.

2. Today learned counsel for respondent no.5 seeks further time despite grant of last opportunity for the same on 17.06.2015.

3. At this juncture, the learned counsel for respondent no.5 states that no reply is required on his behalf; therefore his right to file reply stands closed.

4. Though the respondents 3 and 4 are not served as the Secretary of Gram Panchayat was not found at his place of residence when the process server approached him, but it does not appear that subsequently any attempt has been made to serve respondents,i.e.,Gram Panchayat and Zila Panchayat afresh. However, considering the nature of order that is being passed today, the service of respondents 3 and 4 is disensed 2 WP No.2212/2014 with.

5. The present petition assails the order of Collector passed in an appeal on 21.03.2014 (Annexure P/1), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his non-appointment to the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Babripura, Tahsil Ambah, District Morena.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner is heard.

7. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/State is also heard.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure P/8, which is Provisional National Trade Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of an examination, which the petitioner was subjected to in July, 2009. The said certificate certifies the petitioner to have passed the examination in respect of Computer Operator and Programming Assistant. It is submitted that the said certificate despite having been furnished alongwith the application for appointment to the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak was not taken into account as no marks were allotted to the petitioner in this regard, which fact is evident by the select list vide P-9 prepared by the Janpad Panchayat, Ambah.

9. Perusal of the abovesaid select list indicates that respondent no.5, who is placed at serial number 1, has been allotted 110.2 marks, which includes 60% of educational qualification + 50 marks for Computer Examination whereas in respect of the petitioner, who has been placed at Sr. No.5, 72% marks have been allotted for educational qualification, but no marks are awarded for Computer Examination.

10. While challenging the appointment of respondent no.5 before the Collector in appeal, the petitioner had specifically raised the ground of 50 marks for Computer Examination not having been awarded to him as was done in the case of respondent no.5.

11. On a comparative assessment of the contents of the select list vide P-9, it is evident that if 50 marks were allotted to the petitioner for Computer Examination, his total marks would have been 122 thereby enabling him to secure position no.1 in the select list.

12. The order of the Collector indicates that the Collector has not applied his mind to the abovesaid aspect of non-grant of marks in Computer Examination and therefore the Collector has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him.

13. The petitioner's fundamental right enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, to be considered for public employment in accordance with law, stands breached.

14. Accordingly, the appellate order of the Collector dated 21.03.2014 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be set aside and the present petition stands allowed with the following directions :-

(1)The appellate Order of Collector Morena dated 21.03.2014 (Annexure P/1) is quashed;

(2)The Collector is directed to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner, with special emphasis on the ground of non-grant of 50 marks to the petitioner for Computer Examination and pass a speaking order after granting due and sufficient opportunity to all concerned as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 60 working days from the date of communication of a copy of this order;

(3)In case the Collector after reconsideration finds that 50 marks of Computer Examination are liable to be awarded to the petitioner then the same be done and the select list be rearranged by placing the petitioner at Sr. No.1.;

(4)In case the order of the Collector in the appeal after consideration pursuant to this order is passed in favour of the petitioner, then respondent no.3- Zila Panchayat and respondent no.4-Gram Panchayat are directed to issue appointment in favour of the petitioner as Gram Rozgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Babripura, Tahsil Ambah, District Morena;

(5)As a necessary consequence, the services of respondent no.5 be terminated after affording due and sufficient opportunity in accordance with law. (6)No cost.

(Sheel Nagu) Judge Mehfooz/-