RAKHADI Vs. M P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been wrongly eliminated and not selected for the State Civil Services. Facts relevant for the disposal of the case are as under.

(2.) In order to clear the backlog of posts belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, a special recruitment drive was undertaken and advertisement inviting applications was issued by respondent No.1. The said advertisement published in the "Rojgar Aur Nirman" issue dated 11.9.2003. Since the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe, she submitted an application. The petitioner successfully sailed through the process of preliminary examination and her name was included in the result declared by respondent No.1, M.P. public service commission on 11.7.2005. It is pertinent to point out that it was mentioned in the result that the selection for the main examination was provision in respect of all candidates. Thereafter, public service commission issued instructions to fill up the forms for the main examination of State Civil Services, 2003. The said instructions were published for general information in the "Rojgar Aur Nirman" issue dated 2.9.2004. It was clearly mentioned in the said instructions that the requisite certificate should be issued by the SDO, Revenue or higher authorities and so far as married women are concerned, their certificate must bear the name of father. It is not disputed that the petitioner had submitted the certificate to claim the benefit of Scheduled Tribe and in the said certificate, instead of her father's name, her husband's name is mentioned. The petitioner cleared the main examination, but for want of requisite certificate, she was issued a provisional interview-call letter to face the Interview Board on 13.9.2005. A perusal of the interview call letter also reveals that the petitioner was directed to produce the requisite certificate at the time of interview. Since, the petitioner was not having the requisite certificate as required vide Annexure R-1, therefore, on the date of interview, she submitted an application that she will furnish the requisite certificate within 15 days. Thereafter, as no certificate was furnished by the petitioner, respondent No.1 declared the final result on 6.11.2005 and forwarded the same to the State Government for doing the needful.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it was not in the hands of the petitioner to obtain a certificate. As soon as the certificate was issued, she submitted the same to the respondent No.1 and, therefore, her name ought to have been included in the final select-list prepared by respondent No.1.