ARJUNLAL MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Harish Mathur for non-petitioners No. 5 & 6 and Mr. H. N. Calla learned Government Advocate. Perused the writ petition and reply filed by the State as well as non-petitioners No. 5 & 6. A simple question in this case is involved, petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis in the year 1976 and is continuing service. Then in the year 1978 the examination were conducted by the Public Service Commission for the recruitment of the Legal Assistant, petitioners as well as non-petitioners No. 3 to 16 appeared in the examination. Petitioner failed in the examination and the respondent nos. 3 to 16 succeeded in the examination conducted by the Public Service Commission. The grievance of the petitioner is that the orders Exs. 7, 8 & 9 which were passed on 26th May 1982 were valid orders and could not have been changed or modified or cancelled without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. He has prayed that the orders annexure 11,12 and 13 may be quashed. It is a settled position that the person selected by the Public Service Commission will always get a preferential treatment and the person who has failed can not have the premium over those who have been selected by the Public Service Commission. In fact the petitioner lost his rights whatever he had in the year 1978 when he failed and the failure of the petitioner and the success of the non-petitioners No. 3 to 16 go to show that the non-petitioners have a better right than the petitioner who has failed. The State Government have the right to correct the mistakes committed by them and they have rightly corrected it by passing the orders Exs. 11, 12 and 13. The question of principles of natural justice does not come in the picture as the facts which are before the court are admitted facts that the petitioner has failed in 1978 whereas non-petitioner succeeded in the year 1978. Petitioner succeeded in the year 1980 in the second attempt. Undeniable facts remained undeniable and the petitioner is not even in a position to make any submission about the facts stated earlier. On the contrary he submits that it is correct that the petitioner failed in 1978 and non-petitioners succeeded in the year 1978 he also admits that in his second attempt petitioner succeeded in the year 1980. Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.