RAMPRAKASH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the preparation of merit list for appointment on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak ordered by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Chhatarpur; and, the consequential order passed on 30.4.2012 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bijawar appointing respondent No.6 on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement was issued by the Gram Panchayat concerned vide Annexure P/1, calling for eligible candidates to submit their candidature for appointment to the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. According to the advertisement, the applications were to be submitted between 8.2.2012 upto 23.3.2010. Petitioner submitted his application vide Annexure P/2 on 22.2.2010 and in accordance to the applications received till the last date, the Gram Panchayat prepared a merit list Annexure P/3, in which petitioner s name was kept at Serial No.1, having obtained 68% marks. Thereafter, a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat proposing appointment of the petitioner to the post in question and subsequently, the matter went to the Janpad Panchayat, Bijawar, which approved the resolution and prepared merit list placing petitioner at Serial No.1, on the basis of the marks obtained by him i.e 68% marks, in the qualifying examination. Annexure P/5 is the merit list prepared by the Janpad Panchayat. According to the petitioner, when the matter was so pending, respondent No.6 Shri Lakhanlal Tiwari submitted an application to the authorities concerned on 3.3.2012 vide Annexure P/7 alongwith necessary certificates and based on this application submitted by him, a fresh merit list was published by the Jila Panchayat, placing respondent No.6 at Serial No.1 on the ground that he has obtained 81.88% marks and as he is appointed in pursuance to the said merit list, challenge to the appointment of respondent No.6 is made in this writ petition.

(3.) The only ground canvassed for challenging the said appointment is that respondent No.6 did not submit his application between the period 8.2.2012 to 23.2.2010, his application was submitted on 3.2.2012 and accepting his application after a period of more than two years of the last date fixed i.e 23.2.2010, the appointment made is said to be unsustainable. Accordingly, in sum and substance claim of the petitioner is that the candidature of respondent No.6 has been considered after a period of two years and even though he did not submit any application before the cut-off date i.e 23.2.2010, but with a view to give him undue benefit, his application has been considered and he is appointed in an illegal manner.