AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In the present case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order
dated 04.10.2014 passed by respondent No.1-Managing Director,
M.P. State Corporation Dairy Federation Bhawan Habibgajn,
Bhopal whereby the representation made by the petitioner has been
rejected which was submitted by him for his appointment on the
post of Technician to which he was selected and placed at Serial
No.40 in the waiting list whereas Narendra Singh the respondent
No.2 who was at Serial No.42 in the waiting list was selected on the
post of Technician.
In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a
holder of M.Sc. (Computer Science), I.T.I. Electronics and requisite
experience for the post of Technician. The advertisement for which
was issued by the respondent No.1 in the year 2012 for direct
appointment and the date of submission of form was 27.07.2012.
The petitioner appeared in the examination his name found place at
Serial No.40 in the waiting list as per Annexure P-4 but from the
said waiting list, the respondent No.2, who was at Serial No.42 was
appointed and has given his joining on 18.10.2013. When the
petitioner came to know about the appointment of the respondent
No.2 he made a representation on 21.10.2013 which was not decided
and subsequently when a writ petition No.22444/2013 was filed by
the petitioner before this Court, who vide its order dated 01.05.2014
directed the respondents to decide the petitioner''s representation in
accordance with law and subsequently the respondent No.1 after
considering the petitioner''s representation rejected the same vide its
order dated 04.10.2014 (Annexure P/9) on the ground of delay in
submitting the documents. Subsequently, the petitioner again
submitted the representation along with all the relevant documents
but as contended by the petitioner no order has been passed on the
same and being aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2014 this
petition has been preferred by petitioner.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the grounds taken by the respondent to reject his representation
that he has not submitted his documents in time is belied by the fact
that the other candidates who have also not submitted their
documents in time were selected, hence, so far as of the rejection of
the petitioner''s representation is concerned the same made illegal,
arbitrary and unjust.
In return the respondent No.1 has submitted that it is
admitted that though the petitioner''s name was at Serial No.40 in the
waiting list but the appointment of respondent No.2 has been made
who was at Serial No.42 for the reason that the petitioner did not
turn up in time along with all the relevant documents. The
respondent has also relied upon the fact that the rules governing the
process of recruitment test and selection of the candidates for the
vacant positions were drawn and made available to all on Vyapam
Website.
It is further submitted that the petitioner had secured his
name at Serial No.40 in the waiting list and through circulation of
news-papers and Websites all the candidates of this waiting list were
asked to submit their self-attested testimonial of the documents for
scrutiny before 10.08.2013 but the petitioner submitted his
documents on 21.10.2013 with an explanation that owing to his
mother''s ailment he could not submit the same in time. Thus, the
petitioner''s documents were filed after a delay of 2 months and 11
days when the selection process was already exhausted. So far as the
respondent No.2 is concerned it is submitted that he was also asked
to submit his documents for scrutiny before 23.09.2013 and the
respondent No.2 has submitted his documents on 21.09.2013 and
after due scrutiny of the documents respondent No.2 selected and
has been given appointment on the post of Technician at Jabalpur
Corporation Milk Union.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondents that various groups of persons were given different date
to submit their documents, hence, the date for submission of
documents differed from person to person. Thus, if the petitioner
was asked to submit his documents on 10.08.2013 in the same
manner the respondent No.2 was asked to submit his documents on
or before 23.09.2013. Similar is situation with other persons to
whom the petitioner has referred to in his petition. Since, it is
submitted that this petition be devoid of any merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
In the rejoinder the petitioner submitted that when the final
result was declared then notice was published in the newspaper on
04.11.2012 in which the date to submit the documents was
mentioned as 30.11.2012 and it is submitted that since the
petitioner''s name was in the waiting list but no information was
given in respect of exhausting of the waiting list and the respondent
No.1 has deliberately not informed the petitioner and has adopted
the pick and choose policy in filling the vacancy from waiting list.
To this rejoinder an additional reply has also filed by the respondent
No.1 and has submitted that the paper publication was made on
04.11.2012 (Annexure P/3) in which it was directed that the
documents be submitted till 30.11.2012 and for further information
it was directed to visit the "Website of mpcdf " of which a regular
information shall be furnished in this behalf and accordingly
subsequent to the exhaustion of regular list the dates were published
in the Website and the vigilant candidates had acted accordingly and
participated in the ongoing process.
It is specifically mentioned that the publication of all the
waiting lists and last dates for submission of waiting lists''
candidates self-attested documents was in this respondent''s
aforesaid Website only as mentioned in Annexure P/3 hence the
petitioner had failed to take advantage of the same and no relief can
be granted to the petitioner. In the additional return the respondent
No.1 has also filed a representation R/1/2 submitted by the petitioner
in which an admission has been made that he was made to make a
false statement regarding the ailment of his mother.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
In the considered opinion of this Court the petitioner has
not been able to make out any ground for interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for the reasons that the contention of
the petitioner that he has been given undue treatment cannot be
accepted and in the light of the reply as also the documents on
record and the advertisement (Annexure P/3) dated 04.11.2012 it is
clearly mentioned that the regular information shall be supplied
regularly to the candidates on the "Website of mpcdf " of respondent
No.1. The petitioner could not utilize the aforesaid information to
his use and approached the respondent with the documents after the
regular list was exhausted. Even otherwise, it is not the contention
of the petitioner that no information was provided in the Website of
the respondent. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on the decision in AIR 2008 SC 1446 State of Jharkhand
vs. Bijay Kumar is not applicable in this case. Apart from that the
admission of false statement made by the petitioner in Annexure
R1/1 regarding his mother''s aliment is also an act unbecoming of a
Government Officer.
In these circumstance, this petition fails and is hereby
dismissed. No costs.