LAWS(MPH)-1978-2-2

ADARSH KUMARIBHARTI Vs. K N SINHA

Decided On February 20, 1978
ADARSH KUMARIBHARTI Appellant
V/S
K N SINHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order of the Government dated 9th July 1976 appointing respondent No. 3 as Deputy director, Women's Welfare (in charge of Applied Nutrition) on her being selected by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner has in fact challenged the selection by the Public Service Commission on the ground that selection was not validly made by the Public Service Commission.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner she is posted as Deputy Director (Women's welfare) Incharge of Applied Nutrition, in the Department of Panchayat and samudayik Vikas, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. According to her this is a Class I post on which the petitioner was working on the date of this petition. It is further alleged that the petitioner's claim for promotion to this Class I post was neglected or refused by respondent No. 4-the State of madhya Pradesh. Hence she filed a writ petition which was Misc. Petition no. 684 of 1973 and was heard by this Court at Jabalpur and by order dated 6-2-1975 was allowed. A review petition was filed by the State respondent no. 4 which was also rejected by orders dated 8-10-1975. It is further alleged that respondent No. 4 State filed a special leave petition to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court. The special leave petition (No. 3564 of 1976) was also summarily rejected by the Supreme Court on 5-1-1977.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, an advertisement No. 5 of 1975 in continuation of advertisement No. 15 of 1974 was issued and a temporary post of Deputy Director (Women's Welfare)-a Post Gazetted and in Class I service on revised pay scale of Rs. 650-1150 was advertised. According to the petitioner in this advertisement the classifications and preferential qualifications were stated. The petitioner, respondent No. 3 and about 65 others applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement No. 5 of 1975 and the petitioner was interviewed on 29th June 1-976 whereas respondent No. 3 was interviewed on 28th June 1976.