Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Subsequent selection process in Warad Murti Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 June, 2020Matching Fragments
extended for one year but the departmental examination must be cleared during the extended period. The Appellant could, however, clear the examination on 28.01.2001 that is more than three years after the initial appointment.
Consequently, the status of the Appellant and similarly situated persons, who could not clear the examination even within the extended period of probation, is the matter in issue, raising the question whether the persons selected in subsequent selection processes, who had cleared the departmental examination within the stipulated period, should rank senior to the Appellant and similarly situated persons.
(a) of Rules of 1961 would make it clear that if refers to inter se seniority of the persons which is based upon the order of merit in which they are recommended by the concerned Selection Board. It would also be clear from Rule 12 (1)
(a) that a person appointed in the earlier selection process shall be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection.
… … …
10. At this stage, it would be necessary to observe that a person who is directly appointed in order of merit in which they are recommended for appointment they have their inter se seniority, their seniority cannot be compared with any person who has been appointed in a subsequent selection process. The authority only has a right to fix the seniority of such probationer who could not complete his probation period successfully within his own cadre or within the person who had been selected in the same selection process. If the arguments of learned Advocate General is accepted, the same is likely to create an administrative anarchy because in a given case a person may complete the probation period successfully within one year and the other may not complete the same within two years and in between if another selection process takes place and the other person of the subsequent selection process completes the probation in less than one year and is confirmed then he is likely to become senior to the person who still had some Civil Appeal No. 2601 of 2020 @ SLP(Civil)No.14036 of 2019 etc. etc. Warad Murti Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
valid period of probation. It is also to be seen that there is always a distinction between appointment and confirmation. Once Public Service Commission or the appointing authority undertakes the process for selection then for that class this is the end of matter. After such selection the persons would be appointed on probation or permanently. In case persons are appointed on probation then they would be required to complete the period of probation successfully and on completion of the period they would not be reappointed or reselected but they would be confirmed on the post. If there is a marked and sharp distinction between selection, appointment and confirmation then such distinctions could not be kept in oblivion by the State Government and the petitioners could not be awarded seniority below the persons who had been selected/appointed under the subsequent selection process.”