AJAY SAHU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises out of the order dated 15 -10 -2003 passed by the learned Single judge in W.P. No. 4994/2003. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that respondent No. 4 Jila Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd., Tikamgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') published an advertisement dated 19 -4 -2003 inviting applications for the various posts. Pursuant to the advertisement, appellant No. 1 applied for the post of Stenographer and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 applied for the post of Steno typist. The appellants were permitted to appear in the written test held on 12 -6 -2003. In the said written test they succeeded. Call letters were issued to the successful candidates including the appellants directing them to appear for the interview to be held on 8 -7 -2003. However, the respondent No. 4 Bank vide letter dated 2 -7 -2003 intimated the appellants that the Commissioner/Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Madhya Pradesh (respondent No.2) has directed the Bank to stay the process of selection and accordingly the interview will not be held on the said date. The appellants challenged the order dated 30th June 2003 passed by the Registrar, Co -operative Societies by filing a writ petition. It was contended before the learned Single judge that the order dated 30 -6 -2003 passed by the Registrar, Co -operative Societies is arbitrary and illegal as no reasons have been assigned for staying the recruitment process started by the Bank in compliance of the permission earlier granted by the Registrar. It is not disputed that the selection process was about the 51 sanctioned posts only. Combating the allegations in the petition the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 filed the return. According to them the order dated 30 -6 -2003 was passed by the Registrar because there were reports of irregularities being committed by the Bank in the selection process. It was also stated in the return that although the advertisement was issued reserving the posts for scheduled castes, scheduled tribe and other backward classes but in actual selection, reservation policy has not been adhered to.

(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 4 and 5 have also filed their return and in their return they supported the case of the appellants/petitioners. It was submitted in the return that the Bank had issued advertisement for the posts by strictly following the reservation policy and there was no irregularity or illegality committed in the selection process which was strictly in accordance to the sanction letter dated 4 -4 -2003 of the Registrar. It was also stated that the order of Registrar is arbitrary and unreasonable as no reason has been assigned by the Registrar while staying the recruitment process. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order disposed of the writ petition. The operative paragraph of the order of the learned Single Judge is as under:

(3.) PERUSAL of the order P/XI indicates that no reasons have been mentioned by the Commissioner in the order for staying the process of selection. In the return it has been mentioned that though in advertisement reservation was specified, but complaint was received that it was not adhered to, details have not been furnished in the return how provision of reservation was violated. Final selection has not yet taken place, only written examination was held, interview which was to be held on 8 -7 -2003 has not been conducted. Thus, it appears prima facie that since final selection was not made the mention in the return that in selection process provision of reservation was not adhered to is a premature allegation levelled in the return. However, in the circumstances Secretary of the Department is directed to examine the matter and in case provision of reservation has not been violated so far, obviously process has to go on. Let the matter be examined within one month from today and appropriate order be passed by the Secretary concerned in the matter mentioning the reasons and the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner be also gone into by the Secretary. It is against this order of the learned Single Judge the appellants have filed this appeal. We have heard Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 and perused the record of the case, including the impugned order.