SAMEENA KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE centroidal issue that has emerged for adjudication in this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether a candidate at the time of interview conducted by the M. P. Public Service Commission [in short 'the Commission'] would offer preference in respect of certain posts and thereafter being not selected for those posts can put forth or advance a claim that she should have been considered for other posts despite the factum the Rule, the advertisement and the form unequivocally postulate that if a candidate has not given any preference in respect of the posts, he or she would not be considered for the said post ?

(2.) THE facts that are requisite to be adumbrated are that an advertisement was published by M. P. Public Service Commission (in short 'the Commission') in Rozgar and Nirman dated 9-4-1998 bearing advertisement No. 0298 for filling of 423 posts of various categories of posts in the State Government. As put forth in the petition there were 16 categories of posts out of which 9 were Class II and 7 were Class III. The petitioner submitted an application pursuant to the advertisement in due time and her application was accepted after proper scrutiny. The petitioner qualified in the examination and was called for interview. She appeared in the interview before the Commission. It is urged in the petition that the petitioner had education in English medium and knows little Hindi and, therefore, filled up the form at the time of the interview in a different manner as she could not understand the contents of the form properly. None in the Commission pointed out about the proforma and no help was offered to her to fill up the same as a result of which she could not get selected in he interview despite having obtained higher marks than many others. It is contended that she secured 129th position for the 423 posts advertised. 78 posts were in Class II and the rest were in Class III. It is set forth that the petitioner could have been selected in respect of 78 posts in Class III cadre but it could not be so as the posts were excluded while filling of the form by the petitioner at the time of interview. It is the stand in the petition that in view of her position in the merit list she could have been selected but unfortunately her form had been rejected which led her to submit a representation to the Chairman, Public Service Commission in which she narrated all facts and pointed out how the mistake had crept in. In this backdrop a prayer has been made for commanding the respondents to include the name of the petitioner at Sr. No. 129 of the merit list and offer her the post available at that number with all consequential benefits.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2, M. P. Public Service Commission, contending, inter alia that the Commission conducted the combined competitive examination for State Civil Services for selection of eligible candidates for various posts under the employment of State of Madhya Pradesh. The State Government has framed a set of Rules, namely, the State Civil Services Examination Rules (in short 'the Rules') for holding the State Civil Services Examination. As per the rules the combined competitive examination comprises of three categories, namely, Preliminary Examination, Main Examination and Personal Interview. There is no dispute in the return that the petitioner was selected in the main examination and, therefore, detail given in the return need not be adverted to. A reference has been made to Annexure R-2-1 whereby a call letter for interview was issued to the petitioner. It is emphasised that the said interview call letter would reveal that answering respondents in advance had given a preference sheet alongwith the detailed lists of posts covered under the advertisement so that the candidates could submit the preference sheet alongwith verification before the personal interview indicating the order of preference in which they want to be considered for selection on various posts covered by the advertisement. It has been enumerated that in the instant case the petitioner submitted her preferences in the following order :-