Deepak Asai and another vs Superintendent of Special Police Establishment

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.