SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(MP) 1552

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K.K. TRIVEDI, J.
Aditya Tiwari – Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
W.P. No. 610 of 2012
Decided On : 03-07-2013

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: D.K. Dixit, Ramsufal Chaturvedi.
For the Respondent: Piyush Dharmadhikari.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the selection process for government appointments must adhere to the rules governing reservation and merit-based selection, and any deviation from these rules would render the appointments invalid.

Headnote:

Appointment - Sub Inspector (Radio) - Article 226 - [Article 226, Constitution of India] - The court discussed the selection process for the appointment of Sub Inspectors in the Police Department of Madhya Pradesh. The case involved the reservation of posts for different categories and the selection of candidates based on merit marks. The court found that the selection process was flawed and ordered the cancellation of certain appointments and the reappointment of candidates based on their eligibility and merit marks.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the selection process for the appointment of Sub Inspectors in the Police Department of Madhya Pradesh, alleging that the selection was vitiated due to the appointment of candidates from reserved categories against vacancies for the General category.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the selection process was flawed and that the appointments made were in violation of the rules governing reservation and selection based on merit marks.

Issues: The main issue was the validity of the selection process and the appointments made for the post of Sub Inspector (Radio) in the Police Department of Madhya Pradesh.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the selection process must adhere to the rules governing reservation and merit-based selection, and any appointments made in violation of these rules would be deemed invalid.

Final Decision: The court ordered the cancellation of certain appointments and directed the reappointment of candidates based on their eligibility and merit marks.

ORDER :

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the action of respondents in making the select list for appointment of candidates on the post of Sub Inspector (Radio) in the Police Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh. It is contended that pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board for brevity), the petitioner and many other candidates have taken part in the written examination. Such an examination was conducted for many vacancies in different disciplines and categories in the Police force of the State of Madhya Pradesh. After the written test, a physical test was held at Bhopal, and thereafter interviews have taken place. Those who secured merit marks in all the aforesaid three tests were selected and a final result was declared. However, as against 575 vacancies advertised, only 462 candidates were selected and appointed. When the petitioner verified his final result, he could know that he has secured total 226 marks, but was not allotted any post. A similarly situated person, the respondent No. 4, who too has received total 226 merit marks in all the aforesaid three test, was allotted the post of Sub Inspector (Radio). This being so, the petitioner initially challenged the action of the respondents in respect of appointment of respondent No. 4 only. Later on, the facts came to the notice of the petitioner that selection was made in respect of certain other candidates and some of the candidates though were not eligible, were said to be selected superseding the claim of the petitioner, therefore, exhaustive amendments were made in the writ petition. The said selected candidates were made party and claims were made for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Radio).

2. It is contended in the writ petition that though the posts as were mentioned in the broacher of advertisement were reserved for certain categories, when the persons were not found in the said category, the posts were required to be filled in from amongst the persons of the General category. This being so, though the petitioner was a candidate of General category, having secured sufficient marks but was not offered any post. Therefore, his contention was that such a selection was vitiated and the appointment of one of such reserved category candidates against the vacancy of General category was liable to be quashed.

3. This Court has entertained the writ petition, allowed the amendment in the same and thereafter issued the notices to the respondents. Only the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their return and have contested the matter. The respondents have categorically contended that there were 30 posts of Sub Inspector (Radio), out of which 15 were in the General category and rest of the posts were distributed to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. According to them, six posts were reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category, five posts were reserved for the Scheduled Caste category and four posts were reserved for Other Backward Class category. Thus, a vertical reservation, was made. Further, a horizontal reservation was prescribed, in each aforesaid category. It is described by them that out of fifteen posts in General category eight were open category, five posts were reserved for female candidates, one post was reserved for Police personnel and ex-serviceman. Similarly in the Scheduled Tribe community, three posts were in the open category, two posts were reserved for female candidates and one post was reserved for ex-serviceman. In Scheduled Caste community, two posts were in the open category, two posts reserved for the female candidates and one post was reserved for the ex-serviceman. Almost, similar was the position in the Other Backward Class category, where three p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top