NEETU PAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition has prayed for directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor (Home Science), with a further directions to direct the respondents to explain about 18 disputed questions to the answer sheets of the subject in question.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 24/1/2018, M.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'M.P. PSC' for short), issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor under various subjects. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Home Science). After the examination was over, the key answers were uploaded by the M.P.PSC. The objections were invited by M.P.PSC on 30/6/2018 against key answers. The petitioner allegedly made objection with regard to 18 questions. According to appellant, without considering his objection, the respondent No.2 published the select list on 4/9/2019 for the post of Assistant Professor and the name of the appellant did not find place in select list and instead it finds place in waiting list. He sought information under the RTI as to what decision was taken on his representation and in response to the same, it has been intimated that the concerned e-mail address on which the objections were invited is managed by S.P.A. He, therefore, submitted that what would mean by S.P.A. or who manages the said e-mail, is not his concern, but in any case, his objection ought to have been decided.

(3.) We have perused the record and we find that the select list was published on 4/9/2019 and the instant writ petition has been filed on 1/12/2021 i.e. after about more than two years. Clause 27 & 29 of the advertisement dtd. 24/1/2018, deal with the issues of key answers, their scrutiny and preparation of the final result. The same are reproduced as under :-