PADMA JATAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not calling her for the interview in respect of the State Service Main Examination, 2003. THE contention of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the MPPSC) on 11th September, 2003 inviting applications for filling up the back log vacancies in respect of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe candidates. THE petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste category. THE petitioner as per the advertisement has submitted her application form and total number of vacancies advertised were 429. THE total number of vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Caste category were 88 and 26 posts were reserved under the Schedule Caste women category. THE petitioner has further stated that she was declared successful in the preliminary examination and permitted to appear in the main examination. THE contention of the petitioner is that the result was declared on 5th July, 2005 reflecting the names of the persons who have cleared the State Service Main Examination, 2003 (Backlog). THEreafter interview call letters were issued and under the male category, to the candidates who have secured 1133 marks and under the women category call letters were issued to the women candidates who have secured 1126 marks. THE contention of the petitioner is that large number of women candidates have secured more marks than the marks secured by the persons who have been called for interview under the male category and, therefore, the respondents by segregating the quota at the stage of interview have deprived a large number of women candidates from participation in the process of interview.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that in case other women candidates who were having more marks than the male category candidates, were called for interview, the other women candidates like the petitioner would have been entitled for an opportunity of participation in the process of interview and, therefore, the action of the respondents in depriving the identically placed persons like the petitioner from participation in the interview process is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997, which provides 30% reservation quota for the women candidates.

(3.) LEARNED Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has argued before this Court that the vacancies have already been filled up as the selection process complete in the year 2005-06 and, therefore, in case any adverse order is passed by this Court, ,the same will result in a very difficult situation and large number of reserved category candidates who are already in job since 2006 will face the problem.