GOKUL PRASAD AJAMERIYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, the above mentioned cases were heard analogously together and a common order is being passed. The facts of W.P. No. 3134/2012 are being narrated as under :

(2.) The petitioner before this Court, a member of Schedule Caste, at present serving as Platoon Commander, has filed this present writ petition claiming appointment on the post of Sub Inspector Subedar, in the services of the State of Madhya Pradesh under Home Department (Police).

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued by the M.P. Professional Examination Board inviting applications for 515 vacancies and reservation was also provided for women candidates, for ex-Serviceman, for Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Castes. Petitioner has further stated that being a member of Schedule Caste, he applied under the reserved category that too as an inservice candidate as he was working on the post of Constable. Petitioner has also enclosed his admission card (Annexure P/2) and the same establishes that the petitioner has given first preference to the post of Subedar, second preference to Sub Inspector of Police, third preference to Special Branch, and fourth preference to the Platoon Commander. The examination took place on 25/9/2011 and the petitioner was called for physical test. The petitioner, based upon his performance in the written examination as well as in the interview, secured 202 marks out of 300 marks. The petitioner on account of his performance was allocated the post of Platoon Commander. The contention of the petitioner is that 49 vacancies were reserved for ex-Serviceman and out of 49 vacancies, 45 were meant for non technical personnels and 4 were meant for technical personnels. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that out of 45 non technical posts, 3 were kept vacant on account of some interim order passed in a Writ Petition and finally 14 vacancies were available as ex-Serviceman were not found fit for appointment / selection. The contention of the petitioner is that these 14 unfilled vacancies which were available with the Department have been filled up by persons who are less meritorious than the petitioner. It has been categorically stated that respondents No.4 and 5 have received 199 marks and, therefore, in all fairness, the respondent State once additional vacancies were available, should have given an option to the petitioner whether he is interested in joining the higher post of Subedar / Sub Inspector or not. The contention of the petitioner is that the State Government in a most arbitrary manner has issued appointment order in respect of respondent No.4 on the post of Subedar / Sub Inspector even though both of them are less meritorious than the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the apex court in the case of Anurag Patel Vs. U P Public Service Commission and others, 2005 9 SCC 742 and his contention is that based upon the aforesaid judgment delivered by the apex court, the State Government cannot be permitted to appoint a person on a higher post who is lower in merit list by virtue of his performance in the examination conducted by the respondents. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the revised select list dated 3/2/12, appointment order issued in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 and has further prayed for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector / Subedar as per the preference given by the petitioner while filling the examination form, with all consequential benefits.