Ms. Kritika Mandloi v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

3] The brief facts of the case are that respondents issued an advertisement for appointment Fisheries Inspector, and all the petitioners also applied were also got selected. Copies of the result ha the petition. Thereafter, process of document verification has also been completed by the respondents

impugned order (Annexure

selection process has been cancelled.

4] Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the reply filed by the respondents in W.P. No. 26820/2023

Principal Seat at Jabalpur wherein the respondents have taken plea that the selection process has been cancelled on account of

provisions as prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as "Act, 2016"). Co

further submitted that the mandate which is prescribed under the Act, 2016 could also have been

process. He has submitted that the respondents have compl circular dated 03.07.2018

reservation to disabled persons has been provided in compartment. Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment Dinesh Kumar Kashyap Vs. South Eastern Central Railways (2019 SCC 798 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5] Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has opposed the prayer.

6] Counsel for the respondent /State has opposed the contentions and reply has also been filed. It is contended that no case of made out in the advertisement dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure

2

on 21.11.2022 s on the post of for the same and they ve also been filed alongwith , however, the respondents have also issued the -P/6) and informing the petitioners that the , which has been filed at

noncompliance of the

unsel for the petitioners has

followed without cancelling the entire selection , issued by the State Government, wherein WP No.12082 of 2024

, the

ied with the

horizontal

) 12

interference is -P/1), and has

2

also relied upon the condition No. 5.2 provides that a candidate shall not have any right to be appointed right of appointment shall be the

7] In rebuttal submitted that this aspect case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) paragraphs 24 to 38,

Patne has also relied upon paragraph 13(3) of the GAD Circular dated 18.12.2014, which clearly provides that the appointment orders are to be made within three months after

8] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed on record.

9] The case is the post of Fisheries Inspector and their documents have also been verified. However, entire process of selection has been cancelled for the reasons as mentioned above, to provide reservation to the persons disabilities as provided under Act, 2016.

10] So far as the objections raised by the respondents are concerned, following averments have been made in para 5 of the reply which reads as under:-

"5. That, the answering respondent most respectfully submits Hon'ble that the merely qualifying the advertisement (Annexure P/1) 21.11.2022 a successful

to the petitioners to obtain an

department if the

issuing the appointment orders as the process undertaken itself was not in accordance with the law as enumerated aforementioned. Even the

(2) of the advertisement respondent department for the same. The clause 5 (2)

3

of the advertisement which clearly sole discretion of the employer. , Shri Patne, learned counsel for the petitioners has of the matter has already been taken

by the Supreme Co

and it is submitted that the petition be allowed issuance of selection list.

not disputed, that the petitioners were selected for suffering from

before this

dated and becoming

candidate confers no inherent right

appointment order from the respective respondent department is abstaining themselves from clause 5

reserves the right and prerogative with the reads as under:-

WP No.12082 of 2024

and the

care of in the

urt in

. Shri

3

¼2½ bu fu;eksa lwph esa dsoy ek= vH;fFkZ;ksa fu;qfDr dk dkbZ vf/kdkjh ¼d½ dksbZ

djrk gS]

¼[k½ vH;FkhZ

tkrk gS%

¼x½ vH;FkhZ us fu;qfDr ds fy, e.My }kjk fu/kkZfjr dks iw.kZ u dj fy;k

¼?k½ foHkkx us vH;FkhZ ds i{k esa

gksA**

The aforementioned clause was duly accepted by the rider while filing up the forms pursuant the by virtue of the doctrine of estoppels claim a right which otherwise they are cancellation order dated 16.08.2023.Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts and

respondents the instant

11] It is trite that a candidate has no legal right appointment even if he has been selected consider the reasons assigned for cancellation of the entire selection process, and if the same is found to be

reasoning, the court can certainly exercise its powers of judicial review the present case, it is not the stand of the Government that requirement/demand for filling up any vacancy, or that for any other reasons, they are not inclined to make any fres

cancelling the entire selection process is due to non

provisions of the Act of

is a curable defect and

candidates of the reserved class.

12] In the considered opinion of this C vacancies are already

are many factors affecting a person's eligibility to participate in the same,

4

sa ds v/khu lapkfyr ijh{kk ds ifj.kkeska esa] vgZdkjh s Z sa dks gh j[kk tk,xk ijarq ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa ugha gksxk tc rd fd&

foHkkx@midze fjDr in ds fy, ls dksbZ ekax Z dk uke ekaxdŸkkZ foHkkx@midze dks Hkst ugha Z s q s Z leLr ik=rk

gks% vkSj

s Z s sa fu;qfDr vkns'k tkjh u dj

petitioners as a

advertisement. Therefore

petitioner are not entitled to

not entitled for in light of the

circumstances and bonafied act of the petition deserves to be dismissed."

, but this court can certainly

arbitrary or unjust and not based on any sound there is no further

h appointment, but their reason for

-compliance of the

2016, which, in the considered opinion of this court if cured, would not cause any prejudice to any ourt, the Government

hard to come by, and even if they are advertised, there WP No.12082 of 2024

sa Z

Z sa dks

a ugha

fn;k

fn;k

to claim

. In of the

4

the most important of which is the age limit, and once a person has crossed the requisite age, notwithstanding his competence, his dream of obtaining a government job is shattered.

into the process of document

should not be normally cancelled citing technical infirmities in the original advertisement which are curable and can still be remedied. sees no justifiable reason to cancel the entire selecti respondents can very well issue a fresh advertisement

for specially abled candidates

the originally advertised seats in the advertisement dated ought to have been reserved

the specially abled candidates.

13] This court is of the considered opinion could have continued with the selection process and could have issued the appointment orders also by

with disabilities as prescribed under Act, 2016

not having issued the advertisement for disabled persons could have issued separate advertisement for their appointments by reducing the number of seats already advertised and also taking into account 03.07.2018 (Annexure

P/8) and also decision rendered by Co

case National Federation of Blind, M.P. Branch Vs. State of M.P. & Others, passed in W.P. No. 7275/2019.

14] In view of impugned order dated 16.08.2023 is hereby quashed and respondents are

5

Thus, once a selection process has culminated verification after selection of a candidate, it Thus, t

on process when the

for the seats reserved

by reducing the exact number of

21.11.2022

in the first place in the said advertisement that the respondents

keeping aside/reserving the seats for the persons .As the respondents

the

-P/9) and the judgment dated 06.07.2023 (Annexure -ordinate Bench of this Court in the the aforesaid, present petition stands allowed and WP No.12082 of 2024

his court

seats from

, which

for

, despite

circular dated

-

5

directed to issue appointment orders to the petitioners in accordance with law, and in the light of

15] Let the aforesaid exercise be co within a further time of 2 months.

16] Petition stands Vindesh

6

the observations made hereinabove. mpleted by the respondents allowed and disposed of accordingly.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)

JUDGE

WP No.12082 of 2024

6