JAIDEEP NEEMA Vs. COLLECTOR MANDSAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is pending for hearing on admission sicne October, 1999. Either it has not been admitted nor dismissed. There is no point in keeping such matters pending for hearing on admission for months together and to add to the piling heap of arrears. The short point is to be adjudicated and, therefore, this petition is being decided finally at Motion Hearing stage, in the interest of justice.

(2.) SHRI A. K. Sethi, counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Janpad Panchayat, Sitamau Distt. Mandsaur, invited applications for appointment to the post of "shiksha Karmi Grade-III" by its advertisement dated 20-5-1998 published in "dainik Dhwaj". He pointed out that two separate categories were classified by the said advertisement itself and out of them one was "shiksha Vibhag" and second was "rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission". According to his case 309 posts were categorised for the appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-Ill from Shiksha Vibhag and 16 posts were classified for appointment from Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission. It is the case of the petitioners that they were called for interview, their interviews were separately taken and they were given the appointments on 28-8-1998 (Jaideep Maheshchandra), 10-8-98 (Manoj Satishchandra), 10-8-98 (Vijakumar Prah-lad), 26-8-1998 (Mukesh Katlana), 26-8-1998 (Smt. Shakuntakla Narendra Singh) (Annexurcs P-4 to P-8 ).

(3.) IT is the contention of the petitioners that some complaints were made about the appointments from category "shiksha Vibhag" and the said complaints were inquired into by Collector, Mandsaur. Collector, Mandsaur passed a judgment and order on 20-9-99 (Annexure P-10 ). It is the case of the petitioners that by the said judgment and order he directed respondent No. 2 Janpad Panchayat Sitamau to prepare a common list of the candidates pertaining to both the categories, i. e. , (i) "shiksha Vibhag" and (ii) "rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission". He described the process for processing the applications calling the candidates for interview, to effect the interviews and then to select the candidates by such interviews by preparing a common list. The petitioners contend that as their category is different as indicated by the advertisement itself, there was no necessityfor Collector, Mandsaur to deal with their appointments because the complaints were not in respect of the appointments made from the category "rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission". Reiterating the said stand, Shri A. K. Sethi submitted that for no reason, for no fault, the petitioners arc put to hardship because their legitimate appointment orders have been cancelled by Collector, Mandsaur without jurisdiction and without authority. He submitted that the said judgment and order passed by the Collector, Mandsaur is without authority, without jurisdiction and, therefore, illegal and therefore, it needs to be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari and petitioners need to be appointed on the said posts in view of their appointment orders by issuing writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 accordingly.