Madhya Pradesh High Court
Urban Administration And Development ... vs Vishal Jain on 1 February, 2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 WA Nos.1450/18 & 1791/18
WA No.1450/2018 &
WA No.1791/2018
Indore, Dated : 1.2.2019
Shri V.P. Khare, learned counsel for the appellant in WA
No.1450/2018.
Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant in
WA No.1791/2018.
Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
Heard
This order will govern the disposal of WA No.1450/2018
& WA No.1791/2018.
Both these appeals have been filed under Section 2(1)
of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 23/08/2018 passed
in WP No.16612/2018.
Facts in nutshell are that the appellant-MPPSC had
issued the advertisement for selection to the post of Assistant Director (Planning) on 1.3.2018. The respondent No.1 was one of the candidate who had applied for the post. Since the number of candidates for the post were less than 500, therefore, the selection was to be done on the basis of interview. Selection for the 7 posts of General Category was to be done and the appellant had prepared the list of 35 eligible candidates for calling them for interview. In this list the appellant had included 4 OBC candidates, hence only 31 eligible General Category candidates were called for interview, whereas in terms of the rules the candidates equal to the five times of the posts were required to be called i.e. for 7 posts the appellant was required to call 35 candidates.
Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 07/02/2019 16:49:17HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 WA Nos.1450/18 & 1791/18 The respondent No.1 by filing the writ petition had challenged the action of the appellant in calling only 31 General Category candidates for interview and had also challenged the inclusion of 4 OBC category candidates in the list of General Category candidates for the purpose of interview, whereas separate posts were reserved for OBC category.
Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has held that the PSC was under an obligation to call 35 candidates from the unreserved category for interview, hence the action of inviting only 31 candidates from General Category was unsustainable and has accordingly set aside the list of candidates prepared for interview with a direction to the PSC to prepare a fresh list of candidates for interview and hold the interview accordingly.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the OBC category candidates were meritorious candidates, who had obtained high marks therefore, on the basis of merit their names were included in the interview list of General Category candidates.
As against this, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that at the stage of interview reserved category candidates on the basis of their high marks cannot be included in the list of General Category candidates and the same is permissible only when final select list is prepared.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The State Government has enacted Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 07/02/2019 16:49:17 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 WA Nos.1450/18 & 1791/18 Pichhade VArgon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (for short "the Act") for the purpose of providing reservation of vacancies in public services and the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Section 4 relates to fixation of percentage of reservation of posts and standard of evaluation and sub-section(4) thereof provides as under:-
"4. [Fixation of percentage for reservation of posts and standard of evaluation.]:-
(1) ****************** (2) ****************** (3) ****************** (4) If a person belonging to any of the categories mentioned in sub-section (2) gets selected on the basis of merit in an open competition with general candidates, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for such category under sub-section(2)."
The appellants are seeking to include names of the OBC Category candidates in the list of General Category candidates at the stage of interview on the basis of the aforesaid provision but above sub-section (4) permits such an inclusion name of reserve category candidate in the list after the final selection and not at the intermediate stage of selection. The words "gets selected" leaves no mirror of doubt in this regard as to when the inclusion is to be made.
The Division Bench of this Court also considering the similar issue in the matter of Hemraj Rana Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2006(3) MPHT 477 (DB) in a case where the petitioner was seeking invocation of Section 4(4) of the Act at the stage of main examination, has held as under:-
Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 07/02/2019 16:49:17HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 WA Nos.1450/18 & 1791/18 "The language of the said sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 makes it clear that if a person belonging to any of the reserved categories gets 'selected' on the basis of merit in an open competition with the general candidates, he shall be adjusted against the vacancies meant for general candidates. The word 'selected' clearly indicates that sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam of 1994 will apply only at the time of final selection of candidates and not at the time of preliminary examination."
Having regard to the aforesaid statutory provision as earlier interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in holding that for 7 General Category seats the appellants are required to call 35 General Category candidates and they can not include OBC candidates in this list.
In this regard the reliance of counsel for the appellant on the circular dated 7.11.2000 is of no help because the said circular only seeks compliance of amended Section 4(4) of the Act.
Learned Single Judge has also placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Deepa E.V. Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2017) 12 SCC 680, wherein considering the relevant applicable rule in that case, it has been held that an OBC candidate who had applied by availing age relaxation and also attending interview under that category, cannot claim right to be appointed under the General Category.
So far as the reliance of counsel for the appellants on the Division Bench order dated 23.3.2018 in WA No.138/2018 Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 07/02/2019 16:49:17 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 WA Nos.1450/18 & 1791/18 in the case of State of M.P. and another Vs. Uday Sisode and others is concerned, nothing has been pointed out to show that it was not a case of assigning merit in the final select list but a case of inclusion of the name of OBC candidate at the intermediate stage of selection process. Hence, no benefit of the said order can be extended to the appellants.
In view of the above analysis, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge and no case for interference is made out. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Signed order be kept in the file of WA No.1450/2018 and a copy thereof be placed in the file of connected WA No.1791/2018.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) (Vivek Rusia)
Judge Judge
trilok/-
Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner
Date: 07/02/2019 16:49:17