KIRANBALA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the Director, Prosecution, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, by which while considering the representation made by the petitioner in terms of order dated 03.06.2013 passed in W.P. No.7488/2010, final decision has been taken for termination of services of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Assistant District Prosecution Officer vide order dated 01.06.1996 in reserved category. Such an appointment was given to the petitioner on her selection by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. A complaint was received in respect of the appointment of the petitioner alleging that only on the basis of a forged caste certificate, the petitioner has obtained appointment. Such a complaint was made over to the Collector, Jabalpur for conducting an enquiry. The said enquiry was made over to the enquiry officer, who after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report holding that the petitioner was not belonging to the scheduled tribe community. The appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the State Government on the basis of such report, which order was sought to be challenged in O.A. No.2076/1998 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal by the petitioner. The said original application was allowed on 26.02.2000 and the order passed by the State Government was set aside. However, liberty was granted to the State Government to conduct an enquiry before the competent authority, precisely the High Power Screening Committee. This order was sought to be challenged in the writ petition by the State Government before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.4146/2000, which was dismissed on 31.07.2000. The State Government thereafter referred the matter to the High Power Screening Committee, constituted in terms of the law laid -down by the Apex Court in the Case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, : AIR 1995 SC 94. The said committee after conducting an enquiry, gave a report on 11.03.2010 saying that the certificate produced by the petitioner was found to be forged one and a direction was given to the Collector, Jabalpur for cancellation of the said certificate. This recommendation made by the High Power Screening Committee was sought to be challenged in W.P. No.7488/2010 (S). The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 03.06.2013 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in terms of the law laid -down by the Apex Court in the case of Dattu vs. State of Maharashtra,, 2012 (1) MPWN 124. After such consideration, since the representation is rejected by the impugned order, this writ petition is required to be filed.

(3.) AN application for vacation of the interim relief is also made. At the same time, the petitioner has also made an application for final disposal of the writ petition, therefore, parties are heard at length.