Virendra Kumar Chourasiya vs State of M.P. and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—This petition is pending since 2009. The return has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not prepared the case on merits for the purpose of arguing on admission and he prays for time. Looking to the fact that the petition of the year 2009, has been listed for hearing on admission, after filing of the return, the prayer for time prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected.

Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the petitioner, whose name has been mentioned at Sr. No. 3 in the waiting list prepared by the authorities for making appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in the OBC category, has been denied appointment. The petitioner has also challenged the advertisement dated 29.9.2008 whereby the respondent authorities immediately after publishing the result have issued a fresh advertisement for filing up three backlog posts of the OBC category without considering the petitioner for appointment on these posts.

On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner has prayed for calling the entire record of the selection process of OBC candidates in the subject of Political Science and for quashing advertisement dated 29.9.2008 issued by the respondent authorities for filing up backlog posts. It is submitted that the petitioner being placed at Sr. No. 3 in the waiting list is entitled to appointment.

The respondent Public Service Commission has filed a return and has stated that the advertisement dated 19.6.2006 was issued on the basis of a requisition sent by the Higher Education Department specifying the posts and qualifications therein. It has been stated that the petitioner applied pursuant thereto for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, Political Science for which 7 posts of OBC category have been advertised out of which 2 were to be filled up from women candidates. It is submitted that the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 3 in the wait list. The respondent no. 2 has categorically stated that the petitioner was and is not more meritorious than any of the candidates selected in the OBC category. The respondents have specifically denied that any of the candidates were not qualified or were not possessing the requisite qualification. The respondent no. 2 has also clarified that the advertisement issued on 29.9.2008 was on the basis of a separate requisition made by the State Government on 7.5.2008 and these vacancies advertised in the advertisement dated 29.9.2008 are subsequent vacancies for which a separate requisition was made. The respondent has also stated that all the vacancies advertised pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.6.2006 have been filled up and, therefore, the waiting list cannot be implemented.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It is settled law that a waitlisted candidate can only claim appointment in case any of the selected candidate refuses to join or that the advertised posts remain vacant after exhaustion of the select list and the waiting list has not lapsed on afflux of time. As the respondent no. 2, in para-3 of the return, has specifically stated that all the vacancies advertised pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.6.2006 have been filled up by candidates of the select list who are more meritorious than the petitioner, the question of operating the waiting list and thereby giving appointment to the petitioner does not arise.

The contention of the petitioner to that effect is, therefore, misplaced and misconceived and is accordingly, rejected.

It is also clear from a perusal of the averments made by the respondents in the return that the vacancies notified in the subsequent advertisement dated 29.9.2008 are separate and distinct vacancies. The said vacancies were neither included nor do they have any relation to the previous advertisement dated 19.6.2006. As the vacancies subsequently notified by the advertisement dated 29.9.2008 were not included in the previous advertisement, therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim appointment on the said post in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Shroti vs. State of M.P. and others, 2011 (3) MPLJ 47. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.