RAJKALI SAKET Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these appeals have arisen from common order dtd. 12/7/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16456-2012 and W.P.No.15240-2013, therefore, the same are being heard analogously and for the sake of convenience the facts are taken from W.P.No.16456-2012 for consideration.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent-State issued an advertisement on 23/6/2010 (Annexure P-4) inviting applications for filling-up the post of Women Ayurvedic Health Worker and Aushdhalaya Sevak in different districts of the State. According to the appellant in district Sidhi two posts of Women Ayurvedic Health Worker and one post of Aushdhalaya Sevak were vacant. Appellant applied for the said post. She was invited for interview with all other eligible candidates. Thereafter, selection list was prepared by the District Selection Committee on 31/10/2011 (Annexure P-6). The name of appellant finds place in the said select list for the post of Women Ayurvedic Health Worker as also for Aushdhalaya Sevak. Thereafter, police verification was conducted. On 4/5/2012 (Annexure P-8), the Collector, Sidhi requested the Superintendent-cum- District Ayurvedic Officer, Sidhi for issuing the appointment order to the appellant. On 25/8/2012 (Annexure P-9), the select list for Women Ayurvedic Health Worker/ Aushdhalaya Sevek was approved by the Commissioner, Directorate Ayush Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. However, before the appointment order could be issued, the candidature of the appellant was rejected on the ground that on the date of advertisement i.e 23/6/2010, only one post of Women Ayurvedic Worker was available which was reserved for Schedule Caste candidate and no post was available for Aushdhalaya Sevak in Schedule Caste category and, therefore, the advertisement dtd. 23/6/2010 itself was incorrect against the availability of posts in question. Vide order dtd. 30/8/2012 (Annexure P-10), an appointment order for other candidate was issued but the appellant was not appointed. The appellant challenged the appointment order dtd. 30/8/2012 and order dtd. 25/8/2012 with a prayer for a direction to respondent No.5 to issue the appointment order in favour of the appellant pursuant to the selection. The learned writ court did not find any substance in the submission made by the appellant and dismissed the petition holding that mere selection does not give an indefeasible right to the candidate for getting appointment. Hence, the appellant has filed the instant writ appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of P.Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others(1990) 1 SCC 411. contends that the reason for denial of appointment to the appellant is unsustainable as the roster for the post in question has been revised on account of formation of new district Singrauli while bifurcating district Sidhi into two different districts. He, therefore, submits that on account of the selection process being undertaken, the rights are accrued in favour of the appellant which cannot be taken away on account of formation of new districts.