LAWS(MPH)-1982-2-3

CHANDRAKANT Vs. M P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONINDORE

Decided On February 09, 1982
CHANDRAKANT Appellant
V/S
M.P.PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, INDORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following order of the court was delivered by Sohani, J.:- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows:-- The respondent Public Service Commission invited applications for the posts of Assistant Engineers (civil) by advertisement No. 1080 issued in that behalf. The last date for submission of application forms was 30th Sept. 1980. As mentioned in the advertisement, a candidate who had obtained a degree in Civil Engineering and whose age as on 1-11981 was within the age limit specified in the advertisement, was eligible for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). The petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed forms before the expiry of the last date fixed for receiving applications. Thereafter, by the letter dated 3rd April 1981, the petitioner furnished to the Commission the statement received by him from the University specifying the marks obtained by the petitioner in his final B. E. (Civil) Degree Examination, for which he had appeard in Jan. 1981 and which he passed in the first division. On 9th April, 1981, the commissioner issued an admission card to the petitioner enabling him to appear for the written test to be conducted by the Commission on 9th and 10th May 1981. In the admission card, it was stated that the admission was provisional and in case it was discovered after the examination that a candidate did not fulfil the requirements prescribed by the advertisement, his candidature was liable to be cancelled. The written examination to be held on 9th and 10th May 1981, was, however, postponed and a fresh admission card was issued to the petitioner on 11th May 1981 to enable him to appear for the written examination to be held on 16th and 17th June. 1981. On those dates, the written examination was ultimately held. The result of the written examination was declared by the respondent on 5th October 1981 and the list of candidates, who were qualified for appearing at the personality test to be conducted by the Commission from 23rd Nov. 1981 to 11th Dec. 1981, was published. The petitioner's roll number was included in that list. The respondent also notified that candidates would be individually informed of the date fixed for their interview, The petitioner, however, did not receive any intimation till 20/11/1981 regarding the date fixed for his interview and hence, on that date, he wrote a letter to the secretary of the respondent Commission requesting the Commissioner to call him for interview as he had qualified in the written test held by the Commission, No reply was received by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner again repeated his request by letters dated 23rd Nov. 1981 and 27th Nov. 1981. The petitioner however did not receive any reply from the Commission and hence on 4th of Dec. 1981, he filed the present petition.

(3.) When the petition came up before us for motion hearing on 5th Dec. 1981, we directed that a notice be issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the petition should not be admitted and interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner be not given. The notice was served on the respondent on 7th December 1981. The petition then came up for consideration before a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mulye and Hon'ble Vijaywargiya, JJ. on 10th of Dec. 1981. On that date, the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, prayed for a day's adjournment, which was granted and the case was fixed on 11-12-181 for motion hearing and for consideration of the application for grant of interim relief sought by the petitioner, On llth Dec. 1981, when the case was called on for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondent to show cause against admission of the petition or against grant of interim relief, Not even a reply to the application for grant of interim relief was filed by the respondent. In these circumstances, the court admitted the petition and granted the interim relief prayed for by the petitioner by directing that the result of the interviews held by the respondent for selecting candidates for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) be not declared until further orders. Thereafter, the respondent filed its return on 31st Dec. 1981. In the return, it was contended that as the petitioner did not possess the essential academic qualification before the expiry of the last date fixed for receipt of applications, he was not found eligible and hence was not called for interview. It was also contended that the petitioner had sought to "hoodwink" the Commission as he had applied for the post even though he had known that he was not eligible and it was strange that he should be invoking the interference of the court in the name of justice.