SEEMA PATHAK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case is called out but none responded on behalf of the petitioner though name of the learned counsel is shown in the cause list. Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt. Advocate is however present on behalf of the respondents. It appears from the order-sheets that earlier also on 13-3-2009 nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, I have perused the record.

(2.) In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ or order commanding the respondents to appoint her to the post of Assistant Professor(Zoology) in the services of the State Government under Higher Education Department on the basis of her selection made by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short 'MPPSC) retrospectively from the date adhoc appointees have been regularised after the selection of the petitioner by the PSC besides to grant all consequential benefits accrued on account of her appointment on the post such as increments, arrears of pay, seniority, promotion etc.

(3.) The short facts as appears from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner being eligible for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) appeared in the examination for selection to the aforesaid post conducted by the MPPSC in 1992-93 and was placed at serial No. 16 of the waiting list. As per the statement made in the return of the respondents, there were only 31 vacancies which have already been filled up on the basis of the selection made by the MPPSC vide order dated 17th September, 1993 and since the petitioner was at serial No. 16 in the waiting list and there being no vacancy left after appointing the candidates from the main list, the wait list candidates were not required to be considered for appointment.