- (1.)IN these three writ petitions common question is involved; whether the selection list on the basis of selection process should have been prepared on the total marks obtained in "concerned subject group" or on the basis of marks obtained in particular "subject" of the group.
(2.)THE matter of appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, is governed by the M. P. Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997, which were notified on 1st January, 1998. The Schedule-II to the rules framed under Rule 2 (c) and Rule 5 of the rules as it stood on the date of advertisement; 27-4-1998 provided educational qualification for Gradc-II Shiksha Karmi "a second class graduate degree in the related subject group". Advertisement; Annexure P-2 in W. P. No. 5461/1999, the qualification which was prescribed was degree in the subject, whereas the selection list which was prepared by the District Panchayat was not on the basis of marks obtained in related subject group. The total marks were discarded. The selection list was prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in subject concerned not the "subject group". Since the marks obtained in related subject group were required to be considered and the District Panchayat considered only the marks obtained in the subject concerned only. The marks of all the subject of the group were not taken into consideration. Thus, the whole of the selection list stood vitiated and it was prepared in infraction of rules. The Commissioner held in Appeal No. 720/a/89/98-99 that the preparation of selection list was contrary to the rules. Hence, the selection list was directed to be prepared afresh in accordance with the rules. However, in appeal No. 191/a/89/98-99, the order passed on 15-2-1999 (Annexure P-1, in W. P. No. 5461/99), the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the exclusion of Smt. Rama Mishra was illegal. She was wrongly excluded and illegally deprive of her appointment and directed her appointment to be made on addition of marks of "related subject group".
(3.)AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the marks obtained in the "related subject group" of all the years of the graduation were required to be taken into consideration, not the marks in the particular subject. The marks in "relation subject group" ought to have been considered. Thus the selection list which was prepared was faulty and in violation of the rules.