VIRENDRA SINGH BAGHEL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was originally filed in this Court on 18-3-1986 and was registered as Misc. Petition No. 1009/86, however, on the establishment of the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal, this petition was transferred and later on, on the abolition of the Tribunal again this petition has been received in this Court for adjudication.

(2.) THOUGH the relief which was sought at the initial stage was for appointment on the post of Ayurved Chiktsa Adhikari and for quashment of the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, however, on account of lapse of 18 years, learned Counsel for the petitioners are confining their relief to the limited extent as both the petitioners have been promoted during the pendency of this petition on the post of Ayurved Chiktsa Adhikari vide order dated 18-1-1994. Thus, in this backdrop it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the difference of wages be paid to them as well as their seniority may be fixed at proper place.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that in response to the advertisement dated 31-10-1980 (Annexure R-2), as many as 29 posts for recruitment of Ayurved Chiktsa Adhikari were advertised. Both the petitioners applied their candidature for recruitment on the said posts. It has, also been putforth by them that vide advertisement dated 31-10-1980 (Annexure R-1) as many as 121 posts of Assistant Ayurved Chiktsa Adhikari were advertised. However, vide Annexure P-1, dated 21-4-1981 both of them were appointed on the post of Assistant Ayurved Chiktsa Adhikari. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that both of them are having more marks than respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Learned Counsel has also invited my attention to Annexure R-4 which is a scheme and it has not been disputed by learned Government Advocate that under this scheme the appointments on the posts of Ayurved Chiktsa Adhikari were made. On bare perusal of the scheme, it revealed that a specific condition has been laid down how the marks would be computed. For better understanding, it would be appropriate to re-write the said condition which reads thus :-^^ izr;sd fo"k; dh ijh{kk mkh. kz djus esa ;fn vfrfjiz;kl gqvk rks mlds U;wure mkh. kkzad dk 10 izfr'kr defd;k x;k**a On going through the above said condition, it is clear that if any extra attempt has been made by any candidate in clearing a particular subject, 10% of the minimum passing marks would be required to be deducted. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have invited my attention to Annexure P-9 which is a chart of obtaining marks by respondent No. 3, Devendra Kumar Bhadora. On going through the chart, it is gathered that in four subjects he obtained supplementary and, therefore, according to the scheme under which selection was made the marks ought to have been deducted and if calculated it would come to 2158. This position has not been disputed by learned Government Advocate. Thus, the petitioners who obtained marks higher to respondent No. 3, as it appears from Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-8, have been discriminated. According to me, the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is contrary to the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Shri Ramesh Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for legal representatives of petitioner No. 1, has also invited my attention to the list annexed along with Annexure R-4 in order to demonstrate that respondent No. 4 also secured less marks than that of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 was promoted de hors the scheme Annexure R-4 as he was promoted from the post of Compounder. This factual aspect has not been disputed by learned Government Advocate.