SUKHELAL MALEKAR Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 published an advertisement dtd. 11/7/2013 through direct appointment for the post of Pump Coolly Safai Jamadar and Choukidar. The earliest government of Madhaya Pradesh had declared "No Exam Year for the year 1984-85 and the petitioner was given General Kramonnati from class 5th to Class 6th since there was no exam conducted by the Education Board in the year 1984-85, as such the petitioner could not get the mark-sheet but he is having the certificate issued by the District Education Officer Mahasamund. The petitioner has appeared in he examination for Class VIII in the year 1989 and he has been declared pass with 50% of marks. The petitioner has been registered with employment and training office of District Mahasamund on 26/8/2010. The petitioner being eligible for the two posts Safai Jamadar and Chaukidar applied for the post of Safai Jamadar and Chaukidar pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent No.2. The petitioner also possessed the experience certificate from the Municipal Council of Mahasamund Distt. Mahasamund, as he had work experience of Chaukidar in the office of the respondents up to 2011. The respondents called for the inter-view on 12.09 2013 for the post of Safai Jamadar and Chaukidar and the name of the petitioner for the post of Safai Jamadar is at serial no.16 and for Chaukidar at serial no.3. The respondent no.3 submitted the experience certificate in computer operator which has been considered by the respondents for the post of Chaukidar. The respondent no.4 also applied for the post of Safai Jamadar and he mentioned his date of birth as 20/10/1974 and on 1/1/2013 his age was 38 year 2 months and 13 days, but as per rules the maximum age for the general category was 35 years. The respondent no 4 has no experience in Safai Jamadar and he is having experience of driving of JCB Machine and for the same he has submitted his experience certificate before the respondent no 2. Thereafter the respondent no.2 published the list of marks obtained by the candidates for the post of Safai Jamadar and Chaukidar, wherein the name of the petitioner is at serial no.18 in safai Jamadar list and at serial no. 30 in Chaukidar list. In both the lists, Zero marks has been calculated in Primary examination Certificate. The petitioner appeared in interview but his marks in class Vth (Primary School Certificate Exam) has been considered as Zero marks since there was no-exam year declared by the Education Department and the respondents have not considered him in merit list and the select list has been declared by the respondent no.02. Thus, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrarily, illegal and contrary to the law as well as Article 14 & 16 of the constitution of India. The petitioner is having experience to work on the post of Chaukidar but the respondent no 2 has not considered the same and selected a candidate i.e. respondent no.3, who is not having any work experience as 'Chaukidar and even he submitted a certificate of experience in Computer operator, but this fact has not been considered by the respondents. The petitioner is under cutoff age limits mentioned by the respondents but the age of respondent no.4 was out of cutoff limit and also he has mentioned the same in his application but the respondents have selected him for the post of 'safai Jamadar', which is illegal and arbitrary. The respondent no.4 has no experience to work as 'safai Jamadar' but he has been selected by the respondents on the post of Safai Jamadar, which is illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that in the year 1984-85, the erstwhile State Government of Madhya Pradesh had declared 'no exam year' and the government had not conducted any exam in the year 1984-85 and general Kramonnati was given to the students, thus the petitioner was promoted from class - V to VI without appearing in exam, as such he must be presumed that he has got 100% marks in the 'no exam year declared by the State Government, but this fact has not been considered by the respondents. The petitioner was already working on the post of Chaukidar in the respondents department for a long time and he is most illegible candidate for both the posts of Chaukidar and Safai Jamadar but the respondents have not considered the same. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the aforesaid posts.