JAGDISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order dated 20.11.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.2241/2006(S) whereby the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition directed the respondents to send respondent no.7 (respondent no.5 herein) to Patwari training despite the fact that the name of the said was not in the selection list, whereas the name of the appellant was very much in the selection list yet he was not send for Patwari training by the respondents which order was upheld in a writ petition filed by the petitioner by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement Annexure P/1 was published to fill up the post of backlog of Patwari in Ratlam district. In the advertisement the qualification was prescribed as Higher Secondary/High School (10+2) along with diploma in computer course from the Government or from any Government recognized institution. Appellant was possessing the requisite educational qualification and diploma in Programming and Application from Electronics Computer and Technical Training Centre, Bhopal, however he applied under the OBC category. He was selected for Patwari training and found place at Sr.No.5 in waiting list of the provisional selection Annexure-P/3 dated 28.11.2005. After verification of the document a final selection list was published on 16.12.2005. Annexure-P/4 wherein he had found place at Sr. No.12. It is further his case that respondent No.5 was selected in the provisional selection list Annexure-P/3, and not found place in the final selection because he was not possessing the diploma in computer application course from the recognized institute. However, he was not empaneled in the final selection and found place in different list Annexure-P/4-A. Even after selection of appellant in the final selection list he was not sent for Patwari training in the year 2005-2006 and by the subsequent order without modifying the final selection list respondent no.5 was sent for training.

(3.) Shri A.K.Sethi, learned senior counsel for the apellant submits that once a final selection list was published, without modification/cancellation of the said list, appellant cannot be deprived from the Patwari training. It is further his submission that respondent no.5 who was not possessing the requisite qualification has been sent for training by subsequent orders to which no show cause was issued and no opportunity of hearing was furnished to him, however, the action of respondents not to send the appellant for Patwari training and to send respondent no.5 in the Patwari training is arbitrary and discriminatory. Prayer is made to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.