SUMIT KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition shall also govern disposal of Writ Petition Nos. 15291/2018, 15269/2018, 15338/2018, 15397/2018 and 15477/2018 as a common question of law is involved in all the above mentioned petitions.

(2.) For the sake of brevity, the facts of Writ Petition No. 15351/2018 are narrated as under:- The respondent No. 2 has published an advertisement dated 29. 10. 2015, thereby inviting applications for appointment on the post of Treasury Officer/Account Officer/Assistant Director in Finance Department. Total vacant posts are 128. The respondent No. 2 thereafter has issued a corrigendum on 16.8.2016 whereby the description of posts for State Services Examination 2015 has been mentioned. In the said corrigendum also, the respondent No. 2 has described 128 numbers of vacant posts. The petitioners being eligible have applied under the advertisement contained in Annexure P/2 and have appeared in the examination conducted by the respondent No. 2. The petitioners have qualified the written examination and thereafter before conducting the process of interviews, the incumbents were likely to give preference with regard to departments. In such exigency, the petitioners have given the Online option for their respective department. Thereafter, the petitioners have been qualified and selected by the respondent No. 2 for appointment of sanctioned vacant post in the respective department. In consequent thereto, the respondent No. 1 has initiated the process of counseling which included the verification of documents etc. However, all the 127 candidates selected in merit list have not participated in the process of counseling, and therefore, the respondent No. 1, vide different orders dated 11.10.2017, 30.10.2017, 5.12.2017 and 23.10.2017, has appointed 111 candidates against 128 numbers of sanctioned vacant posts. However, 5 candidates have been appointed on the post vide order dated 11.10.2017 and 30.10.2017. But, all the said candidates have resigned from their respective posts after issuance of appointment order dated 11.10.2017. In such manner, since the petitioners, who are placed in the waiting list and, on account of resignation of the candidates after issuance of the appointment order, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for appointment on their respective post. In the meanwhile, the General Administration Department (hereinafter in short G. A. D. ) has issued circular dated 14.7.2016, whereby an amendment has been carried out in earlier circular dated 7.3.2012 by virtue of which a post falling vacant on account of contingencies like non-joining, resignation, death etc. will be filled from the candidates of the waiting list. In furtherance to the circulars issued by the G. A. D. , the respondent No. 2 has cleared the waiting list and has given appointment to the waiting list candidates on account of resignation tendered by the candidates, who have been appointed in accordance of merit list. In fact, the petitioners were also selected and appointed on their respective posts through the examination conducted by respondent No. 2 in the year 2014. But, since some of the petitioners were selected by the examination conducted in the year 2015, they have been resigned from their respective posts after joining the services. Therefore, as per the circular issued by the State Government the posts, which are fallen vacant on account of resignation of the selected candidates the respondents should have appoint the candidates of waiting list. All the candidates, who are already selected, have not joined in their respective posts and tendered their resignation. The respondents instead of appointing the petitioners on the posts which are fallen vacant due to the resignation of the selected candidates they should have given appointment to the petitioners, who are in the waiting list. This action on the part of the respondents' amounts to discrimination, therefore, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, in the present case, the petitioners were qualified and selected for appointment of sanctioned vacant post in the respective department for which they have given the Online application form and after selection, their names had appeared in the waiting list. Thereafter the selected candidates, who have not joined and submitted their resignation and therefore, the said posts are fallen vacant. As per circular dated 14.7.2016 issued by the G. A. D. , if the posts fallen vacant on account of non- joining, resignation etc. then the same will be filled up from the candidates of waiting list. Thus, as per the said circular, the posts, which are fallen vacant, should have been filled up giving appointment to the petitioners. Thus, he submitted that, instead of given appointment to the petitioners, the respondents have appointed the candidates, who are in waiting list of 2015 examination, which is totally illegal and arbitrary. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and others vs. South East Central Railway and others reported in AIR 2019 SC 24.