ASMA NASIR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these writ petitions as a singular order of M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal (herein after referred to as the Tribunal) passed in O.A. No. 71/94 on 3 -5 -2000 has been called in question by the State of M.P. as well as by the private party and the grounds are raised being common, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. As the pleadings are complete in all aspects and certain documents have been brought on record by rejoinder affidavit in W.P. 3004/2000 the facts in the said case need adumbration.

(2.) THE facts as have been depicted in the writ petitions and perceptible from the order passed by the Tribunal are that the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 (who was the applicant before the Tribunal) were directly recruited to the post of Assistant Statistical Officer vide order dated 17 -5 -1980. The name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 19. The respondent No. 3 was posted in the office of Distt. Education Office, Raisen whereas the petitioner was posted in the Distt. Education Office, Hoshangabad. Both of them were given ad hoc promotion by the Education Department. Later on the said promotion was regularized on the basis of the recommendations given by the Commission on 15 -6 -1989. It is not disputed that both are governed by the provisions of M.P. Education Service (School Branch) Recruitment and Promotion Rules 1982 (for brevity 'the Rules').

(3.) THE applicant before the Tribunal contended that the writ petitioner who was the respondent No. 3 therein lacked experience and she was not eligible for the post in question in view of the certificate produced by her. The Tribunal referred to the certificate in question and came to hold that the petitioner did never have any administrative experience. Apart from that the Tribunal also opined that the petitioner did not have the teaching experience. In this factual back -drop the Tribunal recorded a finding that the certificate is bogus and false. The Tribunal quashed the appointment of the petitioner and directed the applicant before the Tribunal to be appointed as Dy. Director. Being dissatisfied by the said order the petitioner has visited this Court.