Back
RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA
Pooja Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
ORDER
1. Assailing the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.21408 of 2021, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 1.6.2021 inviting applications to the post of Cardiothoracic technician, the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 and others applied for the same. There was one post reserved for OBC category and the qualification required was 10+2 with Biology, Chemistry & Physics, Diploma in Cardiothoracic technician and Certificate of Registration in M.P. Sah Chikitsiya Parishad. The petitioner was having all the requisite qualifications to the post in question. When the merit list was prepared, the petitioner was at serial number 1 in the merit list with 39 score whereas the respondent No.3 was having 24 score in the merit list. When the petitioner came to know about the fact that the respondent No.2 is making appointment of respondent No.3 despite he being less meritorious, the petitioner filed an objection to the same but without assigning any reason, the respondent No.3 was appointed on the aforesaid post. No explanation to the objection raised by the
Candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed against existing vacancies, and the employer is not bound to offer unfilled vacancies to candidates in the merit list.
Candidates with higher merit cannot be discriminated against on procedural grounds, emphasizing that merit should dictate appointments as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Selection processes must adhere to previously established criteria, and unilateral changes are impermissible once the process has commenced.
Candidates are estopped from challenging the conditions of a selection process after participating in it without objection.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the selection process must adhere to the terms of the advertisement and the prescribed rules, and any deviation from these norms is impermissi....
Selected candidates do not have an indefeasible right to appointment; the state may issue new advertisements and change qualifications without legal obligation to fill prior vacancies.
Candidates must possess the prescribed qualifications at the time of submission of application and cannot 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
