Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Kumudini Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2019
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-20034-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-20034-2019
(DR. KUMUDINI PATHAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Gwalior, Dated : 02-12-2019
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Bhardwaj, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) That, the impugned action on the part of respondents be held to be illegal and unconstitutional.
(ii) That, the respondents be further directed to henceforth either grant appointment to the petitioner on the basis of Assistant Professor Philosophy based upon her securing position in 2017 merit PSC examination, where the petitioner stands at serial No.1 in the merit list of women category or republished the post of Assistant Professor Philosophy, which is reserved for women candidate and to follow the 100% roaster to make appointments within the stipulated time framework, and to extend all the legally entitled benefits to the petitioner, with all consequential benefits in accordance with law.
(iii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted."
It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that earlier in the year 2014 and thereafter in the year 2016 two posts of Assistant Professor Philosophy were advertised out of which one was kept reserved for un-reserved women category under horizontal reservation system but however the fact remains that in the year 2017 the respondents re-advertized the same post by cancelling the earlier advertisement and only one post of Assistant Professor Philosophy was published. It is submitted that petitioner is a senior most in 2 WP-20034-2019 the merit list of women category candidates, but could not be selected due to selection of one candidate under handicapped category reservation. In such circumstances, the present petition has been filed. It is further submitted that there is a direction by this Court in the PIL regarding filling of the vacant post but despite of the same no action has been taken and no advertisement has been issued by the authorities. The petitioner has not challenged the subsequent advertisement issued in the year 2017 whereby the advertisement was issued after cancelling of the earlier advertisement reserving one post under the handicapped category. Now after the lapse of more than two years, the petition has been filed praying for the aforesaid relief. The petitioner has submitted that there is already a direction for filling up of vacant post than the relief which has already been granted cannot be asked for again.
In such circumstances, when no challenge is made to the earlier advertisement or reduction of the post by reserving it under the handicapped category, no relief can be granted as claimed by the petitioner after lapse of two years. Petition sans merit and the same is dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Van SMT VANDANA VERMA 2019.12.05 10:34:17 +05'00'