(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 7. 10. 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 2370/2007, filed under the madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), adhiniyam, 2005.
(2.) THE facts briefly are that by an advertisement published in june 2005 in the news paper "rozgar and Nirman", applications were invited for 883 posts of Constable (General Duty) and out of 883 posts, 97 posts were to be filled in the 10th Battalion, SAF, sagar. In response to the advertisement, the appellant applied and he went through successfully a physical test and thereafter he appeared in the written examination in July 2005 and was selected along with other candidates for interview. After the interview, the select list of 97 candidates was prepared and in the select list, the name of the appellant found place amongt the successful candidates at serial No. 13 of the list pertaining to General category. The list was sent to the respondent No. 3 Inspector general of Police, Special Armed Force, Jabalpur Range, for approval but the respondent No. 3 rejected the same by order dated 23. 8. 2005 on the ground that in the answer-sheets of some of the candidates, there was some over-writing and interpolation. The order dated 23. 8. 2005 passed by the Inspector General of Police was challenged before the High Court of M. P. in W. P. No. 9308/2005; W. P. No. 9582/2005; W. P. No. 10573/2005 and W. P. No. 12492/2005 by some of the successful candidates and by a common order dated 25. 9. 2006, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order dated 23. 8. 2005 passed by the Inspector general of Police after holding that the authorities should have only cancelled the result of those candidates whose answer-sheets contained overwriting or interpolation and should not have cancelled the result of other candidates.
(3.) AGGRIEVED, the respondents filed W. A. No. 1286/2006, W. A. No. 1287/2006 and W. A. No. 1425/2006 against the common order dated 25. 9. 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in the four writ petitions and a Division Bench of this Court while upholding the common order dated 25. 9. 2006 of the learned Single Judge directed that the relief granted by the learned Single Judge by a common order should be restricted to the writ petitioners and should not be extended to persons who had not come to the Court. Thereafter, a fresh select list was drawn up but the name of the appellant was not included in the select list because he had not filed writ petition at the first instance along with Writ Petitions no. 9308/2005; 9582/2005; 10573/2005 and 12492/2005. The appellant then filed Writ Petition No. 2370/2007 (s) contending that his name should have been included in the select list prepared afresh pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the earlier batch of writ petitions as modified by the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals. By the impugned order dated 17. 10. 2007 the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ petition No. 2370/2007 (s) after holding that the Division Bench in the writ appeals has directed that the relief should be restricted only to the writ petitioners and should not be extended to those who had not approached the Court after relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India and others ( {1992} 3 SCC 136 ).