DINESH KUMAR ARYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner belongs to a Handicapped Scheduled Caste Category. The Respondent No. 2 had advertised four posts of Assistant District Prosecution Officer (ADPO) vide advertisement published in the Employment News with block dates of 29th December, 2008 to 4th January, 2009 (Annexure P/3 at page 14 of the paper-book). All these four posts were reserved for handicapped people. Out of them, two were unreserved, one reserved for SC and one for ST.

(2.) The selection was to be made on the basis of written test followed by an interview. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 both belong to SC handicapped category. Petitioner got 247 marks in the written examination whereas Respondent No. 3 got only 180 marks. The mark-sheet of the Petitioner is Annexure P-9 at page 10 of the rejoinder. The mark sheet of the Respondent No. 3 is Annexure R-3/4 at page 13 of the return to the petition filed by Respondent No. 3. There is no dispute between the parties that the Petitioner is more meritorious than the Respondent No. 3 in the selection process held for recruitment to the post of Assistant District Prosecution Officer (ADPO) pursuant to the advertisement, Annexure P/3.

(3.) The Petitioner was denied appointment by Respondent No. 2 (PSC) for reasons best known to it. The Respondent No. 3, who also belongs to SC handicapped category and was less meritorious than the Petitioner, got her appointment to the post in question vide appointment letter dated 23rd October, 2010 (Annexure R-3/6 at page 15 of the return filed by Respondent No. 3). Her appointment was, however, subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition and this was so mentioned as condition No. 2 in her appointment letter.