VINAY KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Adarsh Muni Trivedi, Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. D.K. Bohre, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. Challenging the order Annexure P/13 dated 31/03/2012 by which the petitioner's appointment on the post of Forest Guard has been cancelled, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) FACTS in brief indicated that an advertisement was issued by the State Government for appointment of the Forest Guard in the various Forest Divisions. This advertisement was issued sometime in the month of June 2008. Examination was conducted and the petitioner participated in the examination and obtained 49 marks in the written examination and 5.1 marks in the viva accordingly his name was kept in the merit position No. 75 and he was found eligible for appointment as 111 posts were available. The petitioner was selected and was sent for training and after undergoing training, he was appointed for a period of two years on probation vide Annexure P/3 respectively. After the selection process was concluded one Shri Krishnendra Prasad Mishra who was also a candidate who had participated in the process of selection approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 13072/2008 (S) and he came out with a grievance in the said case that his paper was not valued properly and marks allotted to him were not correct. In the said writ petition No. 13072/2008(S) the present petitioner Vinay Kumar Mishra was arrayed as respondent no. 3. Notices were issued and the case of Shri Krishnendra Prasad Mishra was considered and in the said case it was found that there was certain discrepancies in the valuation done with regard to Shri Krishnendra Prasad Mishra and it was also found that he had received 42 marks out of 70 and in written and 6.5 out of 9 in Viva. Accordingly, he has received 48.5 marks which was less than the marks received by the last candidate who was appointed last i.e. 49 marks. After evaluating his grievance and on the basis of the certain directions issued by this Court his answer -sheet was directed to be revalued and in revaluation 8 marks were increased and accordingly on revaluation it was found that the petitioner in W.P. No. 13072/2008(S) was entitled for appointment as he has received more marks then the last appointed candidate. Accordingly, his petition was allowed and the case of Shri Krishnendra Prasad Mishra was directed to be considered. The writ appeal was filed by the State Government against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal No. 973/2010 having been dismissed and it is seen that Shri Krishnendra Prasad Mishra has been appointed, however while doing so and while granting appointment to Shri Krishnendra Prasad Mishra.

(3.) HOWEVER , counsel for petitioner argued that when W.P. No. 13072/2008 was argued before this Court even though the petitioner was impleaded as party but his counsel did not appear and did not raise any objection to the revaluation done. It is pointed out by Shri Adarsh Muni Trivedi, learned senior counsel that inspite of the fact that the revaluation results were available before this court also, this court did not issue any direction for correcting the marks of the present petitioner. That apart he points out that in the original merit list prepared vide Annexure P/9, the petitioner's name appears at serial no. 75 as he had received 54.1 marks in all. Persons from serial no. 76 to 111 had received less marks then the present petitioner and if there was any error in the original valuation done then the answer -sheets of all the candidates should have been revalued. It is stated that in case of more than 36 persons no such revaluation was ordered and their results have been maintained but a discrimination has been done in the case of petitioner only where revaluation has been done because the State Government has produced his answer -sheet without there being any specific prayer made by anybody for re -valuating the answer -sheet. It is stated that if answer sheet of the petitioner has to be re -valuated and result was to be corrected then the answer -sheets of all 36 persons appearing below the petitioner as per merit should also be re -valuated and then the decision taken. It was argued that the petitioner alone cannot be singled out for a discriminated treatment and his appointment cancelled.