AJAYBHAN BAGRI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a candidate for appointment on the post of Village Employment Assistant has approached this Court challenging the validity of advertisement dated 2.6.2012 contending that the process was initiated on 22.7.2010 by inviting application, the petitioner and the respondent No.6 and many others were candidates in the said proceedings. After receipt of the application and completing the formalities, a list was prepared in which the name of respondent No.6 was shown at Serial No.1 and the name of the petitioner was shown in the waiting list. The facts were brought to the notice of the authorities by the petitioner that in fact the respondent No.6 was ineligible candidate as he has produced certain documents which were not to be taken into consideration. However, no action was taken on such a complaint made by the petitioner. On the other hand, after a long time fresh proceedings were initiated for recruitment on the aforesaid post. It is, thus, contended that in case complaint made by the petitioner would have been looked into, the name of the respondent No.6 would have been removed from the list and that being so, the petitioner who was at Serial No.2 of the list would have been appointed on the single post in the particular area. Since this has not been done illegally, the proceedings have been initiated afresh, such action of the respondents is bad in law and as such, fresh proceedings are liable to be quashed. On the basis of these allegations, the petitioner has claimed the relief in the following manner :-

(2.) Upon service of the notice on respondents, the official respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their return and have contended that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the advertisement dated 2.6.2012. In fact, after the instructions were issued by the competent authority, all Collectors, District Programme Co-ordinator and Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat were informed by the M.P. Rajya Rojgar Parishad Bhopal, to initiate the proceedings for recruitment of Village Employment Assistant. The guidelines were issued by the said Parishad.

(3.) The respondent No.6 has independently filed the return and first objection taken by the respondent No.6 is that th petitioner himself has taken part in the proceedings when initiated on 2.6.2012. It is submitted that the petitioner has taken part in the said selection by making an application on 17.9.2012, participated in the selection process and he has not been found fit for such selection and appointment on the post. It is contended that once the petitioner has taken part in the selection and has failed or declared unsuccessful, he cannot challenge the said selection on any ground. Further, it is contended that the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing a representation/ appeal before the District Programe Coordinator in the case of non-selection. Having a remedy under the Scheme and not resorting the same, the writ petition would not lie before this Court. Further, it is contended that the select list so made in the year 2010 has become obsolete on account of lapse of time and now after about two years of making of the said list, direction cannot be issued to make appointment pursuance to the said list. Though the petitioner is also similarly situated having the similar qualifications as that are possessed by respondent No.6 , only because on earlier occasion opportunity of hearing was not granted to the respondent No.6, these facts could not be pointed out to the Committee and a report was given against the respondent No.6. This being so, the writ petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed.