JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. RAJEEV KUMAR TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has filed this appeal challenging the order of Single Bench, whereby Single Bench has interfered with the order passed by the Collector setting aside the selection.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as under :-Nagar Panchayat, Gormi held an interview for selection of Upper Division Teachers. Being aggrieved by the rejection appellant filed an appellant before the Collector, District Bhind under Section 308 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'an Act' ). The appeal was filed on the following grounds :-

(3.) ON being aggrieved by order of Collector writ petition was filed by respondent No. 1 before the Single Bench. Single Bench has allowed the appeal and quashed the order passed by the Collector. It is held by the Single Bench that since the appellant participated in the selection proceedings and after having failed in the selection he has challenged the selection. Appellant was estopped from challenging the selection. Apart from the fact the respondent Rajeev Kumar Tripathi has obtained 67. 97% marks in M. Sc. by Chemistry, whereas the appellant Jitendra Kumar Gupta has secured only 57. 42% marks. Single Bench further held that the assessment has properly been done by the selection committee. In the absence of any allegation of bias, malafide or selection being vitiated on any other grounds raised in the petition selection can not be set at naught. As regards allotment of marks by various members it is held that the selection committee is free to fix its norms in the selection and if the norms fixed are reasonable and in accordance with law not fault can be found with the same and if the selection committee has laid down its norms they can not be questioned in the Court and the procedure adopted by the selection committee is fair and reasonable. The Collector while passing the order has not considered the aforesaid facts and without any justification and without there being any reasonable cause has interfered with the selection procedure and quashed the order (Annexure P-1), dated 21-9-1996 by the Collector. This appeal is filed against the order of Single Bench.