SUBHASH CHANDRAKAR Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common order is being passed in this petition and W. P. No. 1164/96 (Dr. Smt. Ranjana Sharma v. State of M. P. and others) and W. P. No. 1750/96 (Dr. Ku. Gayatri Sharma v. State of M. P. and others). All the petitions arise out of common selection proceedings recommending appointments to the teaching posts of Assistant Professor in the subjects of Political Science and Philosophy is Durga Mahavidyalaya which is an educational institution governed by the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Any Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya Adhiniyam, 1978 (for short 'Act No. 20 of 1978').

(2.) RECRUITMENTS to teaching posts in an institution aided by the State are regulated by Madhya Pradesh Ashashkiya Shikishan Sanatha (Adhyapakon Tatha Any a Karamchariya Ke Bhariti) Niyam, 1979 (for short 'the Rules) framed under the Act. In accordance with the above rules, an advertisement for recruitment to the teaching posts was issued. Consequent there upon, Dr Subhash Chandrakar applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Philosophy and other petitioners Dr. (Smt.) Ranjana Sharma and Dr. (Ku.) Gayatri Sharma applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science. The Departmental Promotion Committee made its recommendation of the Governing Body for appointment by preparing a selection Panel for the post of Assistant Professor in Philosophy. The petitioner Dr. Subhash Chandrakar was placed at the top. In the selection panel for the post of Asstt. Professor in political Science, Dr. Gayatri Sharma was placed at Serial No. 1 and Dr. Ranjana Sharma was placed at No. 2.

(3.) AFTER the appointees had assumed charge of office and started functioning, the Governing Body through its Chairman issued the impugned order dated 7.3.1996 (Annexure - P.18) only few days after their appointments which is challenged in this petition. By the impugned communication, petitioners Dr. Subhash Chandrakar and Dr. Ranjana Sharma were informed that appointment orders came to be issued in their favour by the mistake as the Governing Body had found some legal lacuna in the selection panel and had not taken any decision to appoint anyone from the panel. They were given an option to apply as and when the posts are re -advertised.