LAWS(MPH)-1999-10-20

ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On October 29, 1999
ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent No. 1 the State Government to appoint the petitioner as Managing Director of M. P. State Seed and Farm Development Corporation in terms of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 2-4-1997 (Annexure P-13) of the State Govt. whereby respondent No. 3 has been appointed as the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation.

(2.) FACTS necessary for the decision of the present writ petition are that the State Govt. issued an advertisement, which was published in the daily news paper M. P. Chronicle on 18-2-1995, inviting applications for the appointment to the post of Managing Director of M. P. Seed and Farm Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation'. A Selection Committee was constituted for making recommendation for appointment to the post of Managing Director. Interview for the said purpose was held on 29th and 30th January, 1997. In the interview, besides the petitioner, six other candidates were called for interview. However, three candidates who appeared in the interview failed to submit the necessary no objection certificate from their respective employers. The Selection Committee on assessment of inter-se merits of the candidates submitted a panel of two candidates in order of merit in which the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2; below one Shri R. R. Karsolia. However before any appointment could be made a criminal case was registered against aforesaid Karsolia by the Deputy Inspector General, Special Police Establishment (Lok Ayukta) under Section 7 (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is the stand of the petitioner that the aforesaid Karsolia being disqualified, having been involved in a criminal case, he being below him, is entitled to be appointed to the post of Managing Director.

(3.) IT is relevant here to state that one B. N. Arya filed W. P. No. 786/96 inter alia praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the State Govt. to complete the process of selection and appointment to the post of Managing Director in pursuance of the advertisement published in the daily news paper dated 18th February, 1995. In the said writ petition R. R. Karsolia was impleaded as respondent No. 3 who was acting as the Incharge Managing Director. By order dated 29-2-1996 the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State Govt. to expedite the process of selection and appointment to the post of Managing Director expeditiously in the larger interest of the Corporation and public in general. In the said writ petition the Chief Secretary was not impleaded as a party. Complaining purported disobedience of the aforesaid order, B. N. Arya filed contempt petition No. 333/96 and interestingly respondent No. 3 of the said writ petition i. e. , Ramraj Prasad Karsolia joined as petitioner No. 2 in the contempt application. In the contempt application the Chief Secretary of the State was also impleaded as party. Said contempt petition was placed for consideration before this Court on 6-11-1996 and notice was directed to be issued to respondent No. 1 i. e. , the Chief Secretary, who was not a party in the writ petition, to show-cause as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated against him for acting in wilful disregard and disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 29-2-1996 passed in W. P. No. 786/96. Contempt petition was placed for consideration on 5-12-1996 and it was stated on behalf of the Chief Secretary that petitioner No. 2 of the contempt application has been appointed as Incharge Managing Director of the Corporation and has taken over the charge also. On the aforesaid ground the contempt proceeding was dropped. Later on by impugned order dated 2-4-1997, respondent No. 4 an officer of the Indian Administrative Service has been posted as Managing Director.