M P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. DASHRATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE factual score and question of law being similar to all these writ petitions they were heard analogously and disposed of by this singular order. It is worth noting here that the order passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') has been challenged by the State of M.P., M.P. Public Service Commission and also by the incumbents. For the sake of clarity and convenience we shall advert to the facts put forth in Writ Petition No. 1878/2004 which has been preferred by M.P. Public Service Commission.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts which are imperative to be stated are that one Dashrath Singh along with two others had knocked at the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which stood transferred to the Tribunal by operation of law forming the subject-matter of Transfer Application No. 1808/1988. The applicants therein had appeared for the selection to the post of Assistant Engineer pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Commission on 30.10.1982. The result was declared on 10.7.1984 and they were not selected by the PSC. It is not disputed at the Bar that the said Dashrath and two others were working on ad hoc basis on the post of Assistant Engineer in the Department of Irrigation. Their non-selection was the subject-matter before the High Court in M.P. No. 2094/1984. This Court quashed the selection on 15.3.1985. The matter travelled to the apex Court forming the subject- matter of Civil Appeal No. 2255/1985 and other connected appeals. The apex Court set aside the order of this Court on the ground that the persons who were necessary parties had not been impleaded party before the High Court and accordingly the matter was remanded to the High Court. After the matter was remanded the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 came into force and thereafter the State Administrative Tribunal was constituted on 8.2.1988. In pursuance of section 29 of the aforesaid enactment the matter stood transferred to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the applicants impleaded as many as 64 persons who were in the select list.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Hemant Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Public Service Commission, Mr. S.K. Yadav, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of M.P., Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel along with Mr. D.K. Khadka, Mr. Kishore Shrivastava learned senior counsel along with Mr. Sunil Batra and Mr. Tamrakar, Mr. B.N. Mishra, Mr. A. Ojha and Mr. M.N. Choubey, learned counsel for the respondents.