RAKESH KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition has prayed for quashment of an order (P-4), dated 10-9-2001 passed by the Collector by issuance of writ oicertiorari.

(2.) IT is averfed in the writ petition that petitioner was one of the applicant for the post of Shikshakarmi Grade I in Mathematics. He was called for interview, was declared successful in the selection, and appointed as per order (P-l ). The appointment was challenged by respondent No. 4 by filing an appeal before Collector, Mandla. In appeal the petitioner was impleaded as party which was decided by the Collector as per order (P-2), dated 22-9-1998. Appeal filed was allowed and appointment of petitioner was cancelled. Collector observed that and Shri Sudeep Kumar and Shri Rajeev Bilaiya shall also be called for interview by the selection committee and selection proceeding shall be held afresh. A Writ Petition No. 1654/1999 was filed before this Court. An order (P-3) was passed by this Court on 2-7-1999. Writ petition was dismissed in limine by this Court with observation that the order of Collector may not be constituted to mean that the case of petitioner is not to be considered. In pursuance to the direction of the Collector and the observation made by this Court, fresh interviews were conducted. It is alleged that petitioner was once again declared selected by the selection committee, selection of the petitioner was again challenged by respondent No. 4 by filing an appeal before the Collector. It was alleged by respondent No. 4 in appeal that petitioner ought not to have been called for interview neither his case could have been considered as there was only one post of Shikshakarmi Grade I in Mathematics, therefore, as per recruitment rules, only three persons ought to have been called for interview. The candidates in ratio of 1:3 could have been called for interview. Collector has cancelled the selection as per order (P-4) and has directed for reconsideration of the matter in accordance with the rules. It is averred in the writ petition that observations made by this Court have been violated. Petitioner was found most suitable as such there is no justification for cancelling the appointment.

(3.) A return has been filed by respondent No. 3. It is contended in the return that appointment of shikshakarmi has to be made as per the rules called Shikshakarmis (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1998. Candidates three times of number of the vacancies have to be called. The person who was placed at Sr. No. 1 had obtained 72. 6% marks, respondent No. 4 had obtained 64% marks and the petitioner had obtained only 59. 1% marks. Since only three candidates were to be called as per rules and because the candidature of respondent No. 4 was earlier rejected for he reason that mark-sheet of M. Sc. examination was not found along with the application form the petitioner along with two others was called for interview. It is further averred that Collector has passed an order (P-2) allowing the appeal on 22-9-1998. It was categorically directed that respondent No. 4 may be interviewed and case be considered with Shri Sudeep Kumar and Shri Rajiv Bilaiya. It was further observed that since Sudeep Kumar and Rajiv Bilaiya have already been interviewed earlier, as such bnly respondent No. 4 be called for interview and the proceedings be completed within a period of 15 days. Petitioner has previously filed a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed with the observation that the order of Collector may not be construed to mean that the case of the petitioner is not to be considered. When the matter was reconsidered by the Municipal Council the claims were considered and since only respondent No. 4 was not interviewed she too was called for interview and considered. After preparing merit list of four candidates again since the petitioner was found to be at Sr. No. 1 it was proposed that he be appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade I. Against the selection made, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Collector which has been decided as per order (P-4), dated 10-9-2001. The opinion of the Collector is supported by the rule that only three candidates as against one vacancy could have been called for interview. As per the rules, only the candidates at Sr. Nos. 1,2 and 3 as per merit could have been considered not the case of petitioner.