RAJESH KUMAR GOYAL Vs. M.P HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who had participated in the preliminary examination conducted by the respondents for making appointments to 42 posts in the M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) direct recruitment posts, whereby recruitment from advocates practicing in the State were sought to be made, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that he has not been called or permitted to participate in the main examination by the respondents.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the act of the respondents on the ground that the same is in violation of the provisions of Rule 6 of the M.P. Higher Judicial Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1994 and the terms of the advertisement issued by the respondents on 09.03.2017 inasmuch as though the petitioner is eligible for being called for the main examination by applying the ratio of 1:10 of the available posts, the respondents/authorities have not done so.

(3.) The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the respondent/authorities, in the present case, have advertised a total of 42 posts out of which 6 posts have been reserved for the OBC category candidates, 6 for SC category and 8 for ST category candidates, while 22 seats are available for being filled up by unreserved category candidates. It is stated that as per the terms of the advertisement after the preliminary examination, the candidates were to be called for the main examination in the ratio of 1:10 of the number of posts available on the basis of the merit list of the preliminary examination.