Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. Richa Sijoria vs Gajra Raja Medical College ... on 2 August, 2021

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

   1    THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        WP No.13281/2021
  Dr. Richa Sijoria vs. Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior &
                               Ors.

                 Through Video Conferencing
Gwalior, Dated:02/08/2021

       Shri Siddharth Sijoria, Advocate for petitioner.

       Shri Ajay Raghuvashi, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.05.2021 passed by the Respondent No.1.

(ii) Direct the Respondent No.1 to consider the Petitioner and call her for the interview.

(iii) Allow the Petition with Costs.

(iv) To issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fir and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement dated

31.5.2019 was issued inviting applications for direct recruitment in

the VRDL Department for the category of Scientist B, C and D. The

petitioner in response to the said advertisement applied for the post(s)

provided in the advertisement. However, for certain reasons,

interview for direct recruitment as per advertisement dated 31.5.2019

could not take place. Thereafter, on 22.6.2020, a new advertisement

was issued by the Dean, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. It is

submitted that since the candidates whose forms were already

submitted were not required to fill up new form and, therefore, the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.13281/2021 Dr. Richa Sijoria vs. Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior & Ors.

petitioner did not submit her form. It is pleaded that when Corona

virus was at its peak, yet another advertisement was issued on

17.5.2021 requiring the candidates to submit new application forms

by 31.5.2021. It was also mentioned in the impugned advertisement

that the earlier advertisement dated 22.6.2020 stands cancelled. It

was also mentioned that the application submitted in response to the

previous advertisement shall not be valid and every candidate has to

submit a fresh application. It is submitted that respondent No.1 did

not communicate the information of issuance of new advertisement to

the petitioner in spite of the fact that respondent No.1 was well aware

of the fact that the petitioner had applied on earlier occasion in

response to the previous advertisement. It is submitted that the

petitioner was suffering from Corona virus and, accordingly, she has

filed certificate dated 8.5.2021 and 18.5.2021 to show that the

petitioner was diagnosed positive for SARS C.O.V-2. It is submitted

that since the petitioner herself was down with Covid19 virus,

therefore, she could not check the advertisement which was issued on

17.5.2021 and was uploaded on the website and thus she could not

file an application for recruitment on the post which were advertised.

It is the case of the petitioner that it was a well established practice

that the applications which were submitted in response to the earlier 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.13281/2021 Dr. Richa Sijoria vs. Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior & Ors.

advertisement were also taken consideration at a subsequent stage,

therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to call the

petitioner in the light of her application filed in response to

advertisement dated 31.5.19. Since that has not been done, therefore,

it is submitted that the action of the respondents in not calling upon

her to participate in the interview is bad in law. It is further submitted

that in the present case, the principle of legitimate expectation would

apply. By relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in

the case of Ram Pravesh Singh and others vs. State of Bihar and

others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 381, it is submitted that although a

legitimate expectation is not a legal right but it is an expectation of a

benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from a promise or

established principle. It is submitted that the word "established

practice" refers to a regular, consistent predictable and certain

conduct, process or activity of the decision making authority. The

expectation should be legitimate i.e. reasonable, logical and valid. It

is submitted that in the present case, while issuing the advertisement

in the year 2020 it was mentioned by the respondents that the

candidate whose application forms have already been submitted in

response to the advertisement dated 31.5.2019 are not required to

submit their fresh application forms and, accordingly, the petitioner 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.13281/2021 Dr. Richa Sijoria vs. Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior & Ors.

did not submit her application forms in response to the advertisement

dated 22.6.2020.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Legitimate expectation means a person basing his claim has to

satisfy that he relied on any representation given by the respondents

and denial of that expectation has worked to his detriment. The

Supreme Court in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station and

another vs. Delhi Development Authority and others reported in

(2009) 1 SCC 180 has held as under:

"33. It is well settled that the concept of legitimate expectation has no role to play where the State action is as a public policy or in the public interest unless the action taken amounts to an abuse of power. The court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which is empowered to take the decisions under law and the court is expected to apply an objective standard which leaves to the deciding authority the full range of choice which the legislature is presumed to have intended. Even in a case where the decision is left entirely to the discretion of the deciding authority without any such legal bounds and if the decision is taken fairly and objectively, the court will not interfere on the ground of procedural fairness to a person whose interest based on legitimate expectation might be affected. Therefore, a legitimate expectation can at the most be one of the grounds which may give rise to judicial review but the granting of relief is very much limited. (Vide Hindustan Development Corpn.)"

It is the case of the petitioner that by issuing new 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.13281/2021 Dr. Richa Sijoria vs. Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior & Ors.

advertisement dated 22.6.2020 it was mentioned that the candidate

who have earlier submitted their application forms in response to the

advertisement dated 31.5.2019 are not required to submit their fresh

application form and, accordingly, the petitioner had not submitted

her form in response to the advertisement dated 22.6.2020. Although

the petitioner has filed the copy of the advertisement dated 31.5.2019

but for the reasons best known to her, the copy of advertisement

dated 22.6.2020 has not been placed on record. The entire case of the

petitioner is based on the advertisement dated 22.6.2020, in which it

is claimed that it was mentioned that the candidates who have earlier

applied in response to the earlier advertisement dated 31.5.2019 are

not required to apply afresh. In absence of copy of advertisement

issued on 22.6.2020, it is not possible for this Court to accept the

verbal contention of the petitioner that there was a provision in

advertisement dated 22.6.2020 that the candidate who have applied

on earlier occasion are not required to file the application forms

afresh. Even otherwise the counsel for the petitioner could not point

out any legal right which could have accrued in favour of the

petitioner on submitting her application in response to the earlier

advertisement dated 31.5.2019. In advertisement dated 17.5.2021

which was undisputedly uploaded on the website, it was specifically

mentioned that the application form submitted in response to the 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.13281/2021 Dr. Richa Sijoria vs. Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior & Ors.

earlier advertisement shall not be acceptable and every candidate has

to submit his or her fresh application. If the petitioner did not check

the website of G.R. Medical College, Gwalior

i.e.www.grmcgwalior.org, then it cannot be said that the respondents

are at fault. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that she was tested

positive for Covid19 on 18.5.2021. However, the petition is

completely silent as to on what date she was tested negative for

SARS C.O.V-2 virus. The last date for submission of the application

form was 31.5.2021. Further the question of legitimate expectation

would arise only when the remedy flows from a promise or

established principle. In view of the specific provision in the

advertisement dated 17.5.2021 that the applications filed in response

to the earlier advertisement shall not be acceptable and every

candidate has to file a fresh application, it is clear that the

respondents had clarified the situation very clearly. Further, the

petitioner has not placed any instance or document on record to show

that it was an established practice to consider the application filed in

response to the previous advertisement also. Once an advertisement

has been cancelled, then there is no question of consideration of the

application at the subsequent stage. Furnishing a bank draft of

Rs.1,000/- would not create any vested right in favour of the

petitioner to participate in the recruitment process. Even otherwise if 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.13281/2021 Dr. Richa Sijoria vs. Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior & Ors.

the petitioner is of the view that as the respondents have failed to

proceed further with the recruitment process, therefore, they are not

entitled to retain the amount of Rs.1,000/- then she has a remedy of

recovering the said amount from the respondents and she can recover

the said amount from the respondents by taking recourse to Civil

Law.

As the petitioner has failed to make out the prima facie case

warranting consideration of her application which was made in

response to the advertisement dated 31.5.2019, this Court is of the

considered opinion that no case is made out for interference.

The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun*