Madhya Pradesh High Court
Siddhamani Prasad Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 8th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 2670 of 2022
Between:-
SIDDHAMANI PRASAD TIWARI S/O SHRI RAM
RAGHAV TIWARI , AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE AND
POST JODAURI JANPAD PANCHAYAT
GANGEV DISTRICT REWA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.P. MISHRA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE COLLECTOR REWA DISTRICT REWA M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DISTRICT
PANCHAYAT REWA DISTRICT REWA M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT GANGEV DISTRICT REWA M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUMAN SAURABH PANDEY S/O SHRI
AKHILESH PANDEY , AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NIL R/O VILLAGE AND POST
JODAURI JANPAD PANCHAYAT GANGEV
DISTRICT REWA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARTI DWIVEDI, PANEL LAWYER)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner is seeking following relief.
Signature Not Verified
SAN 1. Respondent no.2, 3 and 4 be directed to issue appointment order
Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY
Date: 2022.02.11 12:11:46 IST
in favour of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi, Village Panchayat Jodauri
falling under Janpad Panchayat Gangev, District Rewa, in the interest of
justice.
2. Cost of this petition may be awarded, in the interest of justice.
3. Any other relief/order or directions, as this Hon'ble High Court
deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case
deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice may please be awarded along
with the cost of proceedings.
As per the facts of the case, selection was conducted for the post of
Panchayat Karmi in the year 2008; the result was declared appointing Suman
Saurabh Pandey (respondent No.5 herein) as Panchayat Karmi in Gram
Panchayat Jodauri, Janpad Panchayt Gangev; and the petitioner was placed in
the waiting list at serial No.1. Thereafter, respondent No.5 who was the
selected candidate submitted his joining on the post of Panchayat Karmi and
later on resigned from the said post and that resignation was also accepted.
The petitioner thereafter claiming that in a selection of Panchayat Karmi in
which he was placed at serial No.1 in the waiting list; after joining on the post
of Panchayat Karmi by respondent No.5; he resigned; the said post was lying
vacant; the petitioner should have been appointed on the said post. The
petitioner thereafter filed a petition in the year 2015 and that petition was
registered as W.P. No.7263/2015 which got disposed of directing the Sub
Division Officer, Zila Panchayat Rewa, to decide the pending appeal of the
petitioner which he had filed against the appointment made in favour of
respondent No.5. The petitioner thereafter pursuing his representation to the
authorities asking that the post of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat
Jodauri is lying vacant and he being a candidate in the waiting list, be
appointed on the said post.
As per the petitioner, his claim for appointment on the post of
Panchayat Karmi is still under pending consideration and, therefore, he is
asking direction that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY
Date: 2022.02.11 12:11:46 IST
the said post.
However, from the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, I am not convinced with
the same as in a selection of 2008 when a candidate secured first position,
submitted his joining and later on he resigned from the post, then the moment
selected candidate submitted his joining, the select list including the waiting
list gets exhausted and after resignation submitted by the selected candidate
there was no reason and occasion for the respondent/authority to appoint the
petitioner on the said post.
The Supreme Court in a case reported in (2002) 1 SCC 113 (State of
Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma and another) dealing with the similar
issue has observed as under:-
"With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in
respect of which the select panel was prepared, the panel ceased to exist
and has outlived its utility and no one else in the panel can legitimately
contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the
vacancy arising on account of the subsequent resignation of the person
appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently.
The circular order dated 22-3-1957, relates to select panels prepared by
the PSC and not a panel of the nature under consideration herein. That
apart, even as per the said circular, no claim can be asserted and
countenanced for appointment after the expiry of six months."
The Supreme Court further in a case reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243
(Raj Rishi Mehra and others v. State of Punjab and another) has
observed as under:-
"18. In State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma [(2002) 1
SCC 113 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 104] a two-Judge Bench considered the
questions as to when the recruitment process can be said to have come
to an end and whether the select list can be operated qua the
posts/vacancies which become available due to resignation of the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY
Date: 2022.02.11 12:11:46 IST
existing incumbent and answered the same in negative by making the
following observations: (SCC p. 115, para 4)
"4. ... With the appointment of the first candidate for the
only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made
and select panel prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has
outlived its utility and, at any rate, no one else in the panel can
legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment
either in the vacancy arising on account of the subsequent
resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other
vacancies arising subsequently. The circular order dated 22-3-
1957, in our view, relates to select panels prepared by the Public
Service Commission and not a panel of the nature under
consideration. That apart, even as per the circular orders as also
the decision relied upon for the first respondent, no claim can be
asserted and countenanced for appointment after the expiry of six
months. We find no rhyme or reason for such a claim to be
enforced before courts, leave alone there being any legally
protected right in the first respondent to get appointed to any
vacancy arising subsequently, when somebody else was appointed
by the process of promotion taking into account his experience
and needs as well as administrative exigencies."Â
19. In Mukul Saikia v. State of Assam [(2009) 1 SCC 386 :
(2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 186] this Court held that once the appointments
are made against the advertised posts, the select list gets exhausted and
those who are placed below the last appointee cannot claim appointment
against the posts which subsequently become available. Para 33 of the
judgment which contains discussion on this issue is reproduced below:
(SCC pp. 394-95, para 33)
"œ33. At the outset it should be noticed that the select list
prepared by APSC could be used to fill the notified vacancies and
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY
Date: 2022.02.11 12:11:46 IST
not future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement was only
for 27 posts, the State cannot appoint more than the number of
posts advertised, even though APSC had prepared a select list of
64 candidates. The select list got exhausted when all the 27 posts
were filled. Thereafter, the candidates below the 27 appointed
candidates have no right to claim appointment to any vacancy in
regard to which selection was not held. The fact that evidently and
admittedly the names of the appellants appeared in the select list
dated 17-7-2000 below the persons who have been appointed on
merit against the said 27 vacancies, and as such they could not
have been appointed in excess of the number of posts advertised
as the currency of select list had expired as soon as the number of
posts advertised are filled up, therefore, appointments beyond the
number of posts advertised would amount to filling up future
vacancies meant for direct candidates in violation of quota rules.
Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to claim any relief for
themselves. The question that remains for consideration is whether
there is any ground for challenging the regularisation of the private
respondents."
Thus in view of the above enunciation of law of the Supreme Court, it
is clear that in the present case the selection was made only for one post and
a person secured position in the select list got appointed and later on
resigned, the petitioner thereafter claiming appointment against the said post
which lying vacant after resignation of the selected candidate, however, the
law as reproduced hereinabove, is contrary to the claim of the petitioner and
as such, the petitioner cannot claim right over the said post.
The petitioner has raised his grievance on earlier occasion by filing the
aforesaid petition in the year 2015 which got disposed of directing the Sub
Divisional Officer to decide the appeal of the petitioner pending before him.
However, the petitioner has not disclosed this fact as to what has happened
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY
Date: 2022.02.11 12:11:46 IST
to the appeal pending before the Sub Divisional officer and if the order of the
High Court is not complied with as to how second petition asking
appointment can be made by him.
Considering the aforesaid situations and the fact that the selection of
year 2008 in which the appointment of the selected candidate had already
been made, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner to seek any direction
for his appointment. Merely because in the year 2008 he was in the waiting list
as has already been made clear, select list does not exist after submitting
joining by the selected candidate, as such, the petitioner cannot claim any
right on the basis of such select list in which he secured first position in the
waiting list.
In view of the aforesaid, in my opinion, the petition is without any
substance and it is hereby dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY
Date: 2022.02.11 12:11:46 IST
