DEVAJI JHARKHANDE vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER

This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court for the same grievance. The petitioner submitted his candidature for the post of Sub-Engineer in the respondent department. The petitioner appeared in the written examination followed by an interview. However, the petitioner was informed that he has secured only 56.64 marks. The petitioner gathered information that no marks were allotted to him in the interview in which he took part and performed well. This led to filing of W.P. No.6075/2012, which was disposed of by this Court on 06.07.2012, by directing the respondents to look into the matter and in case petitioner has appeared in the interview and marks were allotted to him, necessary action be taken on the basis of marks allotted to the petitioner, else a decision be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The respondent No.2 was further directed to conduct an inquiry in relation to appearance of petitioner in the interview. Since, this order was not complied with, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.1585/2012, which was disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to assail the rejection order dated 08.10.2012 (Annexure-R/1).

Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to passing of order dated 08.10.2012, the petitioner was called for re-interview pursuant to same selection and he was given six marks in the head of interview. Attention of this Court is drawn on Annexure-P/7, wherein a note is appended which indicates that petitioner was interviewed on 21.01.2014, and six marks are given to him in the head of interview. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not doubted the genuineness of the document Annexure-P/7 in their return. It is urged that petitioner''s representation dated 13.03.2014 (Annexure-P/8) is pending consideration before respondent No.2 and said authority may be directed to decide it within reasonable time. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that last selected candidate secured 59 marks, whereas after adding said six marks of interview, the petitioner''s marks became 62.64. Hence, petitioner has secured more marks than the last selected candidate. It is prayed that respondent No.2 may be directed to decide the representation within stipulated time.

Ms. Sonali Shrivastava, learned P.L. has no objection.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit Annexure-P/8 alongwith result of re- interview (Annexure-P/7) before the respondent No.2. In turn, the respondent No.2 shall examine the correctness and genuineness of Annexure-P/7 and take a final decision on the representation (Annexure-P/8) within 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order. The respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned order and communicate it to the petitioner.

Petition stands disposed of without expressing any view on the merits of the case.