Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nagar Palika Nigam Gwalior Thr. vs Sanjeev Kumar Jha on 25 October, 2017
1
Writ Appeal No.76/2016
Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Jha & anr.
25.10.2017
Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
Challenge in the appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is to an order dated 15.02.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.2092/2010, whereby learned Single Judge taking into consideration that the appellant though entitled for grant of weightage in view of experience certificate (Annexure P-4) issued by the Sub-Engineer, Public Health Department certifying 2-1/2 years work experience of the appellant directed the respondent (present appellant) to give weightage of 20% marks as per advertisement and thereafter reassess the entire marks and instead consequential benefits. It is further held that in case if the petitioner is not found eligible then speaking order be passed and communicated to the petitioner.
The appellant takes exception to this order on the ground that as per the stipulations contained in advertisement, the petitioner is not entitled for 20% marks.
Advertisement is brought on record as Annexure P-2. The relevant provision regarding experience and the marks to be awarded in lieu thereof is in following terms:-
vuqHko%& mijksDr inksa ds fy;s vuqHko 'kkldh;@v)Z'kkldh;@'kkldh; midzeksa esa lacaf/kr fo"k; ds fy;s fd;s x;s dk;Z dks gh ekU; fd;k tkosxkA blds fy, l{ke izkf/kdkjh dk izek.k i= gksuk vfuok;Z gSA ,d o"kZ ds vuqHko ds fy;s 4 vad] nks o"kZ ds fy;s 8 vad 3 o"kZ ds fy;s 12 vad] 4 o"kZ ds fy;s 16 vad rFkk 5 o"kZ vFkok mlls vf/kd vof/k ds fy;s vf/kdre 20 vad fn;s tkosaxAs 6 ekg ls de vof/k ds vuqHko dks ekU; ugha fd;k tkosxkA 6 ekg vFkok blls vf/kd ds vuqHko ds fy;s 1 o"kZ dk vuqHko ekU; fd;k tkosxkA 2 Thus in lieu of work experience of 2-1/2 years, the petitioner would be entitled for 12 marks and not 20; therefore, the impugned order is modified to the extent that in place of 20% marks, the respondent (present appellant) shall take into consideration 12 marks in lieu of work experience. Remaining directions are upheld. Let the exercise be completed within two months from the date of communication of this order.
Appeal is finally disposed of in above terms. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
Rashid*