07.07.2010.
Shri P.P. Budholiya and Shri Ajay Sen for the petitioner.
Challenging the selection of Prahri made by the respondents,
in pursuance to an advertisement issued vide Annexure P/2, in the
year 2008, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
The only ground raised for assailing the selection process is
that the State Government by issuing Circulars – Annexure P/5 and
P/6 has provided for 15% reservation in recruitment to the post in
question, for employees belonging to the Madhya Pradesh Home
Guards and in the present selection process no such reservation has
been provided. Accordingly, challenging the entire selection and
the action of the respondents in not providing 15% reservation to
candidates, who belong to the Home Guards, petitioner has filed
this writ petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on a
perusal of the records, it is seen that the advertisement in question –
Annexure P/2 was issued in the year 2008, for total 477 posts of
Prahri. In the said advertisement, reservation for Women, SC, ST
and OBC were provided for. Petitioner applied for appointment in
pursuance to the advertisement in an appropriate category i.e..
unreserved male category, as is evident from the admission card
issued to him. He participated in the selection process and having
failed in the same to get appointment, after having passed the
preliminary and written examinations, is now challenging the
advertisement on the ground that 15% reservation has not been
provided. If 15% reservation was not provided, in the initial stage
petitioner should have objected to the advertisement issued and
2
should have claimed reservation at that point of time. Having
participated in the selection process as a candidate belonging to the
general category and having not sought reservation in accordance to
the policies and circulars of the State Government at the time when
the selection process commenced vide advertisement- Annexure
P/2, now after the candidates have been selected and petitioner is
not selected after the written examination, indulgence by this Court
by reopening the entire selection is not proper. If the petitioner had
any grievance in the matter pertaining to non-grant of reservation,
petitioner should have objected to at the very first instance. Having
participated in the selection without any objection and having failed
to secure appointment, now petitioner is estopped from challenging
the selection on the grounds raised in this petition.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the claim made by the
petitioner warranting interference, for the reasons as indicated
hereinabove, this petition is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON)
JUDGE
Aks/-