CHANDRAKANT NAMDEO Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2014 passed by respondent No.1-Managing Director, M.P. State Corporation Dairy Federation Bhawan Habibgajn, Bhopal whereby the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected which was submitted by him for his appointment on the post of Technician to which he was selected and placed at Serial No.40 in the waiting list whereas Narendra Singh the respondent No.2 who was at Serial No.42 in the waiting list was selected on the post of Technician.

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a holder of M.Sc. (Computer Science), I.T.I. Electronics and requisite experience for the post of Technician. The advertisement for which was issued by the respondent No.1 in the year 2012 for direct appointment and the date of submission of form was 27.07.2012. The petitioner appeared in the examination his name found place at Serial No.40 in the waiting list as per Annexure P-4 but from the said waiting list, the respondent No.2, who was at Serial No.42 was appointed and has given his joining on 18.10.2013. When the petitioner came to know about the appointment of the respondent No.2 he made a representation on 21.10.2013 which was not decided and subsequently when a writ petition No.22444/2013 was filed by the petitioner before this Court, who vide its order dated 01.05.2014 directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law and subsequently the respondent No.1 after considering the petitioner's representation rejected the same vide its order dated 04.10.2014 (Annexure P/9) on the ground of delay in submitting the documents. Subsequently, the petitioner again submitted the representation along with all the relevant documents but as contended by the petitioner no order has been passed on the same and being aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2014 this petition has been preferred by petitioner.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the grounds taken by the respondent to reject his representation that he has not submitted his documents in time is belied by the fact that the other candidates who have also not submitted their documents in time were selected, hence, so far as of the rejection of the petitioner's representation is concerned the same made illegal, arbitrary and unjust.