SURENDRA KUMAR CHOURASIA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of rejection letter dated 5. 4. 2008, Annexure P1, whereby respondent no. 2 Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short, "the Commission") has rejected his application for appointment to the post of Curator.

(2.) THE Commission advertised, amongst other posts, two posts of Curator vide advertisement dated 3. 7. 2006, Annexure P2. In column no. 13 of the advertisement the minimum educational qualification for the post was prescribed which stated that a candidate should have experience of three years in the field of Museum and Archaeology. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner applied in a prescribed form for the post of Curator. In the application, Annexure P3, he furnished the details of his educational qualification. His application, however, did not show that he had the experience of three years in the field of Museum and Archaeology. The Commission, therefore, by the impugned letter dated 5. 4. 2008 rejected his application on the ground that he did not possess the requisite experience as per the advertisement.

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of petitioner that he is highly qualified and, therefore, the Commission ought not to have rejected his application for the post of Curator. Number of documents have also been filed to suggest that petitioner is very learned in the subject of Museum and Archaeology. But it is to be noted that neither it is pleaded in the petition nor any document has been filed to show that he has the minimum required experience of three years as shown in the advertisement. Even the application form, Annexure P3, of the petitioner does not reveal that he has three years experience. Thus, in the absence of required experience, the Commission cannot be said to have committed any illegality in rejecting the petitioner's application.