Satish Nigam vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 16.12.2010 and proceedings Annexure P-2. A direction was prayed for issuance of appointment order in favour of the petitioner as per the recommendation dated 26.11.2010. The petitioner was posted as Additional Programme Officer under the national Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in Janpad Panchayat, Raghogarh, District Guna on contract basis. Before that the petitioner worked as a Map Designer in Zila Shiksha Kendra Shivpuri on contract basis. It is contended that petitioner''s services were unblemished. The respondents with a view to fill up the vacant post of Assistant Engineer in Zila Shiksha Kendra Shivpuri, issued an advertisement on 19.10.2010 and invited applications from open market. The petitioner submitted his candidature for the said post.

It is contended that six candidates applied for the said post and after scrutiny of forms, the respondent No. 5, being the Secretary of the District Selection Committee sent notice to the petitioner on 16.11.2010 for appearing in oral interview. The petitioner appeared before the District Selection Committee comprising of 11 members as per the regulations along with other candidates. It is contended that the Selection Committee headed by Collector/Mission Director of Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission in its meeting dated 26.11.2010 interviewed the candidates and granted 67 marks to the petitioner which were the highest mark amongst the candidates. It is contended that the Committee directed for issuance of appointment order in favour of the petitioner. The merit list and minutes are filed as Annexure P-5 and P-6.

It is contended that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed pursuant to his merit position. It is further contended that respondent No. 5 was also a member of aforesaid Committee. The respondent No. 5 ought to have accepted joining of the petitioner on the date of selection of the petitioner when the post was lying vacant. The respondent No. 5 with malafide intention delayed the joining of the petitioner. The action of the respondents is assailed on the ground that the same is founded upon the action of respondent No. 5, who had ill will with the petitioner.

Per contra, the Government by filing return denied the allegations. It is contended that the petition is devoid of substance. Merely because petitioner has secured highest marks in interview, it cannot be said that he has any enforceable right to get appointment. It is contended that the petitioner was given charge of construction work but the quality of construction carried out by the petitioner was not of good quality and if petitioner would have been appointed, it would have frustrated the purpose and object of such appointment. By placing reliance on the proceedings of the Selection Committee and relevant note sheets, it is contended that the relevant record of petitioner was brought to the notice of the competent authority and after due application of mind, the competent authority approved to appoint Shri Purohit in lieu of petitioner. Shri Purohit, as per note sheet, has submitted his joining on 21.12.2010 (overleaf of page 11 of Annexure R-1). Reliance is also placed on the document dated 5.5.2011 (Annexure R-2) to submit that the construction quality was very bad and, therefore, the petitioner was rightly not appointed.

The petitioner, in turn, contended that the antecedents were wrong and because petitioner did not fulfill the illegal demand of respondent No. 5, complaints were made. The petitioner lodged a report before the Lokayukt organization against respondent No. 5, because of which he was annoyed with the petitioner. The alleged work was sanctioned when the petitioner was posted as Map Designer between 12.5.1999 to 28.10.2006. He was given temporary charge of Assistant Engineer from August, 2005 to 28.10.2006. It is contended that except two works, the remaining 18 works were constructed in the supervision of Mr. Rajendra Gupta and petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. It is further contended that the report was prepared by the B.R.C.C. under the pressure of respondent No. 5, which deprived the petitioner from the fruits of appointment.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The allegations of malafide on the basis of alleged demand of bribe is taken by the petitioner for first time in the rejoinder. Thus, this appears to be an after thought and cannot be accepted. In Airports Authority of India Vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey and Others, and State of U.P. and Others Vs. Gobardhan Lal, the Apex Court opined that if allegations of malafide and its foundation is not mentioned in the petition and it is made by way of supplementary affidavit etc., the allegations cannot be accepted. Thus, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner put forth by way of rejoinder for the first time.

Apart from this, this is settled in law that selection alone does not confer any right. The appointment order has not been issued to the petitioner. The note sheet Annexure R-1 and R-2 shows that after taking into account the report of B.R.C.C., it was decided to appoint Shri Purohit, who had already submitted his joining on the said post on 21.12.2010. Since the appointment of Shri Purohit was accepted, there was no need to appoint the petitioner on the said post. There is no material on record that the report submitted against the petitioner by B.R.C.C. was under the dictate of respondent No. 5. No malafides are alleged against the B.R.C.C., nor he is impleaded eo nomine. In absence thereof, no malafides can be attributed against respondent No. 5 or the B.R.C.C. This Court is not inclined to disturb the process adopted by the respondents. The respondents have adopted a plausible process. No legal, vested or constitutional right of the petitioner is infringed. Resultantly, I find no reason to interfere. The petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed.