GYANSWAROOP PATEL Vs. STATE OF M . P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Revenue Inspector in Mandla by order dated 11.2.1997. He had worked on the said post in various districts in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. The Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement issued a notification on 27.12.1995 for filling up of the posts of Naib Tehsildar from Revenue Inspectors and Patwaris through open competition. The said Notification provided certain conditions, namely, a candidate must have five years service as on 1.1.1996; he ought to be a bachelor in any subject by a recognized University within the territory of India and if he belongs to general category, should not be more than 45 years and if he belongs to SC/ST/OBC, should not be more than 50 years and further five years' ACRs would be evaluated and considered for selection.

(2.) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, a written test was held on 28.7.1996. There were two papers in the examination, each containing 50 marks. He obtained 38 marks in the first paper and 36 marks in the second. It is contended that 50% posts were reserved for SC/ST/OBC. It was also stipulated that the candidates who secured 50% marks, would be deemed to have been passed. The Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement called for ACRs through Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Land Records. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, ACRs for the years 1991 to 1995 were sent to him. After going through the ACRs and the marks secured, the State Government declared the result on 5.8.1997. The petitioner could not be selected, as stated, due to wrong evaluation of ACRs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid non-selection, he approached the M.R Administrative Tribunal under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 but the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 18.8.2000 passed in OA No. 4644/2000, Annexure P-10, dismissed the same on the ground that it was barred by limitation. It is put forth that the petitioner had submitted number of representations before approaching the Tribunal and his stand was that though he had obtained 74 marks out of 100, he was not selected; whereas the general candidates who had obtained 65 marks and OBC category candidates who had secured 60 marks had been selected. It was also urged that the ACRs were upto the mark and he had never been communicated any adverse ACRs.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Dilip Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. RN. Dubey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.