HARSHVERDHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the State Government dated February, 2003 (Annexure P-1) whereby the order of the Collector dated 14.9.2000 is cancelled. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:- The respondent No.3 issued an advertisement to fill up certain posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I. The present case is relating to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I (Mathematics), which was reserved for O.B.C. category. The other candidates submitted their candidature for the said post. On 18.2.1999, a call letter for interview was issued which was cancelled on 27.2.1999. Another call letter dated 22.4.1999 was issued for interviewing the candidates on 28.4.1999. On 28.4.1999 itself (Annexure P-8) a request was made to provide experts for the interview Board by the Deputy Director, Education, Morena. This request was made to the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Manpur, Jaura, District Morena. In turn, two subject experts were provided by the Navodaya Vidyalaya to the Selection Committee, who admittedly participated in the selection as a member of the Selection Committee in the capacity of expert members.

(2.) ON 28.4.1999 the appointment orders of the candidates were issued. The respondent No.4 was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-1 (Mathematics). A complaint was made to the Collector, who passed the order dated 14.5.1999 (Annexure P-11) and cancelled the aforesaid appointment. A writ petition No. 806/99 was filed before this Court, which was decided by Annexure P-12. The respondent No.4 herein was the petitioner in the said matter and this Court allowed this petition on the ground that as per Section 323 of the Municipalities Act, the Collector was not competent to cancel the selection or quash the appointment. Liberty was reserved to the Collector to pass orders in accordance with law. In turn, the Collector passed the order dated 14.9.2000 (Annexure P-13) and after assigning reasons, suspended the appointment order dated 28.4.1999. Collector seeking approval of his order, referred the matter to the State Government and in turn the State Government passed the order dated 30.12.2000 (Annexure P-14). The State Government did not approve the order of the Collector and set aside the order dated 14.9.2000 passed b y the Collector.

(3.) IN the aforesaid factual backdrop, it is crystal clear that a long drawn battle was fought in the corridors of this Court by the parties herein.