AMEENA MANSOORI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the parties are at logger heads on the validity of Annexure P-6 dated 01/11/2014, whereby petitioner's name was removed from the select list when petitioner resumed her duties on the post in question.

(2.) Admitted facts between the parties are that for the post of Asha Helper, the selection was conducted. Provisional select list (Annexure P-1) was prepared. Petitioner's name finds place at Serial No.1, whereas respondent no.5 is shown at S.No.3. The said provisional list was published and objections were invited. This list was followed by a final select list, wherein also petitioner is shown over and above the private respondent no.5. Petitioner pursuant to her selection, joined on 28/08/2014 (Annexure P-4). This select list was modified and in place of petitioner's name, respondent no.5 name is directed to be inserted. Criticizing this order, petitioner has raised two fold contentions. Firstly, it is submitted that impugned order entails civil consequence. This adverse order is passed without following the principle of natural justice. Secondly, it is submitted that order does not contain any reason whatsoever for deleting the petitioner's name and substituting the name of respondent no.5.

(3.) Shri Giresh Kekre, learned G.A and Shri Rahul Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 supported the impugned order. By taking this Court to the policy/guidelines, it is submitted that candidate, who has secured more marks in higher secondary and high school will get appointment. By taking this Court to chart (Annexure P-1), it is submitted that admittedly, respondent no.5 has secured more marks in higher secondary and high school than the petitioner.