BHARTI VERMA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a command for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regular appointment with consequential benefits. The petitioner has also prayed for seniority and the arrears of salary with interest.

(2.) THE necessary facts for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioner submitted her candidature pursuant to the advertisement issued by the PSC for the post of Lecturer. The advertisement is filed as Annexure P/1. The petitioner was subjected to selection by the PSC and the appointment order dt.28.7.2008 (Annexure P/2) was passed. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of three years. In Condition No.1 of appointment order it was made clear that after completion of three years, as per the procedure approved by the Government, the appointing authority shall review the work of the petitioner and if found suitable, she will be given regular appointment. The grievance of the petitioner is that she satisfactorily completed three years pursuant to the appointment order dt.28.7.2008. The respondents were obliged to consider her case for regular appointment but they have not considered her case. Reliance is placed on the statutory recruitment rules (Annexure P/3) dt.6th Sept. 2004. The singular condition advanced is that right of consideration for regular appointment is not only a fundamental right of the petitioner, it is a right flowing from the appointment order (Annexure P/2) and the statutory rules (Annemarie P/3). Reliance is placed on the Rule 13 of the said rules namely; Madhyas Pradesh Takniki Shiksha Polytechnic Mahavidyalaya (Adhyapan Samvarg) Seva (Bharti) Niyam, 2004. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner's said right is infringed and in the result, the petitioner is still working on contract basis on inferior emoluments, whereas she is entitled to continue on regular basis. The petitioner criticised the action of the respondents wherein they have repeatedly said that the petitioner's case could not be considered for regular appointment because the relevant ACRs were not available.

(3.) SHRI Newaskar relied on certain paragraphs of the return filed by the respondents No.1 to 4. It is contended that ACRs of three years of the petitioner were required to be considered. ACRs of the petitioner for those period were not complete. Every time when meeting is convened, one or other ACR was missing and, hence, the grievance of the petitioner could not be redressed. It is further contended that the ex principal had not written the ACR and a letter was written to him in this regard but still the ACRs are not complete. In nutshell, the basic reason for non consideration of petitioner's claim for regular appointment is non availability of relevant ACRs.