GOPI KRISHNA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking quashment of appointment of respondent No.3 to the post of lecturer (Pediatrics) in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal and alternatively, for a direction to respondent No.1 to appoint the petitioner on the said post with effect from the date of appointment of respondent No.3. He has also prayed for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) This petition was originally filed before the erstwhile M.P.State Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur in the year 1990. On abolition of the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal, the matter has been transferred to this court and renumbered as W.P.No.6376/2003.

(3.) The facts of the case as can be seen from the pleadings are that petitioner is M.D. (Pediatrics) and was working as Assistant Surgeon under the respondent No.1. On the request of respondent No.1, the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commissioner (in short "MPPSC") issued an advertisement for appointment of 83 temporary lecturers in different subjects including three posts of Pediatrics (Medicine). Out of three posts, one post was available for General quota and two posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidate. The petitioner applied against the post available for general quota. On 7/7/1989, MPPSC published the list of selected candidates and one Dr.Bajaj was recommended for appointment on the post of lecturer in Pediatrics (Medicine) against general quota. The appointment order was issued in favour of Dr. Bajaj and he joined in the month of August, 1989. The MPPSC also prepared a supplementary list and the name of respondent No.3 was placed at S.No..1. The name of the petitioner was in the reserve list at S.No.1. Since during the said time, the world's largest Industrial Gas Tragedy occurred in Bhopal, the State Government had taken various measures to provide the timely medical help to the victims. In order to deal with the situation, several posts were created including three posts of lecturer in Pediatrics in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. It is stated that respondent No.1 issued an appointment order only in favour of respondent No.3 and the other posts of lecturer in Pediatrics remained vacant. Since the petitioner was fulfilling the qualification and was fully eligible to hold the said post, therefore, appropriate order ought to have been issued in his favour. It is pleaded that by keeping the other posts vacant and, only allowing respondent No.3 to work against one post out of three posts, the respondents have discriminated the petitioner, hence the petitioner has approached this court in the instant writ petition.