Back
SUJOY PAUL, ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
Durga Pandey (Dr. ) – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
Key Points: - The petitioner participated in counselling without challenging non-inclusion of PHC, Dagdiha in the 28-02-2019 order; court held that challenging the policy at this stage would amount to rewriting the policy decision. (!) (!) - After participating in counselling and becoming unsuccessful, the petitioner cannot seek amendment/modification to include Dagdiha in the governing order; estoppel/waiver applies. (!) (!) (!) - The government policy decision in the 28-02-2019 order granting incentive marks to in-service candidates is not to be lightly disturbed and cannot be rewritten by the court; policy decisions are within the domain of the State Government. (!) (!) - The court dismissed the petition, finding the petitioner’s grievance devoid of substance as a result of participation in the process and non-challenge to the order earlier. (!) (!) (!)
ORDER
Paul, J. -- 1. The petitioner, a Medical Officer, working in Primary Health Centre, (PHC) Dagdiha, District Satna (M.P.) filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as in-service candidate.
2. During the pendency of the petition, an amendment application was filed whereby the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 19.1.2022 (Annexure P/7) was also called in question. In addition, a mandamus is prayed for to include Dagdiha Primary Health Centre (PHC) in appendix (II) of order dated 28.2.2019 (Annexure P/5). The order dated 19.1.2022 (Annexure P/7) is called in question whereby PHC, Dagdiha was not treated to be more than 25 kms from Satna Municipal Corporation’s Headquarter.
3. In short, the admitted facts between the parties are that petitioner while working as Medical Officer in the said PHC was declared as open category candidate. During the course of hearing, Shri Aditya Sanghi fairly submitted that the relief 7(i) and 7(ii) of the petition for treating her as inservice candidate has rendered infructuous because department pursuant to a different order passed by this Court,
The principle of waiver and acquiescence applies when a candidate participates in a selection process without protest and cannot subsequently challenge the process after being declared unsuccessful.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
