ANJLEENA MASIH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner preferred instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been working since 2013, now fresh list has been issued by the Department in which name of the petitioner does not find place. Since he was working for almost 10 years, therefore, his anxiety is that he is rendered unemployed. Executive Engineer and Superintendent Engineer have recommended inclusion of name of petitioner in the fresh list of appointment. He received "A" Grade through out his career.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents/ State opposed the prayer but fairly submits that if any representation is pending then same shall be taken care of in accordance with law/prevailing guidelines.